Editorial-

Journalistic Principles Cast Aside
As Cape Cod Times Attacks Knowlton’s

BOURNE, MA – There are many reasons that newspaper readership is decreasing, but one of the most compelling factors is that people everywhere have begun to distrust what is presented to them as factual news stories. All too often readers know there is something wrong with the story, but are unable to point to specifics.

But sometimes the line between traditional journalism and polemics is crossed so completely that it becomes easy to illustrate why people are turning away from newspapers. Such an instance was recently provided to readers of Cape Cod’s only daily newspaper.

The Cape Cod Times, serving all 15 towns in Barnstable County, on Cape Cod’s 80-odd mile long peninsula, appears to have met all the standard criteria for libel in a July 23^rd story relating to Knowlton’s Auto Salvage, an old and old-style junkyard in Bourne’s Sagamore village.

Knowlton’s is currently responding to all Town of Bourne environmental and operational requirements, as well as bearing the financial burden of testing its soil through core borings (called wells) in order to work with the state DEP, (Department of Environmental Protection), in seeking to bring the 1930’s era salvage yard up to current standards. But despite the company’s honest efforts, on July 23^rd it was dealt a body blow in a story written by a Cape Cod Times staff writer, Kevin Dennehy.

And the blow was dealt in such a way that it might well be considered maliciously designed to cause economic harm to this family business, which is of course the very definition of actionable libel. Whether or not any such court action is taken is of course up to the ownership family of Knowlton’s, but the story is very illustrative of why readers are more and more cynical about newspapers.

The potential libel is illustrated in the very first paragraph,and expanded upon later. In the first paragraph,  Mr. Dennehy declaratively states: "The owner of a polluted auto salvage yard has told state officials he won't be able to afford the cleanup costs." The newspaper’s potential libel is made more severe by a large headline: "Junkyard cleanup said unaffordable," and the story is placed prominently on Page 3, which in the newspaper industry has long been considered the best news page after Page 1.

But Staff Writer Dennehy never spoke with John Anderson, the owner of Knowlton’s Auto Salvage, to ask if financial issues are currently going to prevent a continuation of the cleanup process.  Instead, Dennehy manipulated facts to arrive at a conclusion that can only be described as extremely detrimental to the salvage company and its ownership family at a critical time; that is, Dennehy created an impression among officials and townspeople alike that the Andersons are now admitting defeat – throwing in the proverbial towel – when the family is in fact striving to meet state and local demands in the face of outspoken critics who clearly would like to see the business closed.

Dennehy’s story has made it harder for the Andersons to succeed, and at the least has already resulted in additional legal expenses.

John Anderson and his family already demonstrated a commitment to the cleanup process by paying for the recent, expensive environmental studies, and by investing in equipment and even landscaping to meet the requirements of the town and state, facts that Mr. Dennehy cannot deny knowing because he has reported upon the ongoing story.

Yet instead of calling Anderson, reporter Dennehy called the DEP, but not the Lakeville branch of the DEP that covers Cape Cod, and which has been working with Mr. Anderson. Instead he called an official in the Northeast Regional offices – Joseph Ferson, a man who at one time was himself a newspaper reporter – and this DEP official’s scouring of computer files gave Mr. Dennehy information nearly a decade old, information that Dennehy then used to paint a picture that seems calculatedly inaccurate.

In the old DEP files it was found that in the early 1990s, when first confronted with a litany of alleged problems, Mr. Anderson had at that time indicated he and his family might be unable to resolve the wide array of pollution allegations that were initially thrown at the family business. But in the years since, officials determined that a great deal of the pollution, initially thought to have resulted from Anderson’s family business, actually emanated from a nearby gas station, not from the Knowlton’s property.

Today the issue of a cleanup is entirely different, and relates primarily to bringing the old salvage yard up to modern standards through a phased clean-up process.

But the Cape Cod Times and Staff Writer Dennehy don’t seem to have been concerned about such important differences. In the second paragraph of his July 23^rd story, Dennehy simply declares, "John Anderson, who owns the decades-old Knowlton's Garage on Route 6A, submitted a claim of ‘financial inability’ to the state Department of Environmental Protection." He and his newspaper specifically implied to the readership that this filing of an inability to meet financial obligations has just happened; that is, that the filing took place in the time period between the July 13th selectmen's meeting and the publication of his story on July 23rd..

To make  Mr. Dennehy’s propagandist technique more perfectly clear, it is important to further define the context in which his July 23^rd story was printed. The story was a follow-up to an environmental report commissioned by and paid for by the Andersons for their business - Knowlton’s Garage - that was presented to the Bourne Board of Selectmen on July 13^th, by their attorney, Jonathan Fitch of Sandwich. The report indicates the salvage yard, as was expected, has some serious issues that must begin to be remedied in the next cleanup phase.

Again, readers of the Cape Cod Times were led to believe that the Andersons decided, sometime in the week after the report was provided selectmen on July 13, that they could not pay for any further work. Readers were led to conclude that the Andersons signed documents to that effect between the date of the July 13^th selectmen’s meeting and when the story appeared on July 23^rd, not some seven or eight years ago, when the Andersons were initially confronted with an array of issues that appeared overwhelming.

In short, Staff Writer Dennehy took information that was many years old and presented it to the readership as though it had just happened. This is a vast departure from traditional journalistic standards.

Mr. Dennehy’s story seems to calculatedly exploit the old DEP information to form a new conclusion; that is, that Knowlton’s ownership family will be unable to economically handle the cleanup, and therefore the business may need to be closed and the town and state must then directly intervene. This tenor and tone is then given full voice by Dennehy’s quoting of one of the selectmen opposed to the salvage yard, whose comments appear to not only employ alarmist tactics but also give cost figures with no substantiation or verification.

Here is how the Cape Cod Times’ Dennehy quotes Bourne Selectman Carol Cheli: "‘We've just got to get those cars out of there, and that dirt has got to go,’ said Selectman Carol Cheli. ‘I can't believe all of the things that are in that (report), and (previous town officials) have allowed it to stay open? ... A major, major cleanup is needed there. I would say it'll go into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.’"

Ms. Cheli, whose previous business experiences involved real estate and nursing homes, is of course using the platform of her office to voice a personal opinion, but Mr. Dennehy chose to quote her and give voice to her opinions while avoiding quoting or contacting other selectmen among the five member board who do not share her views. And he did so immediately after manipulating old news to make it appear current, so that Sel. Cheli's remarks would seem to underscore a crisis. Yet indications of the newspaper’s prejudice and apparent malice don’t end there, they go on in full volume.

Dennehy, with the apparent approval of his editors and publishers who gave the story such prominence, goes on to explain how, "…closer scrutiny has been paid in recent years to the garage's environmental legacy, including untold chemicals that have leaked into the ground from junked cars that lie in piles on the 4.5-acre site. That public threat was a primary reason the old South Sagamore Water District - now part of the Bourne district - shut off a well field about 400 feet from the property."

However, this is not true and Mr. Dennehy and his superiors clearly knew it: The Cape Cod Times (and other local papers) covered meetings and wrote stories where testimony was given showing that the South Sagamore Water District was not closed because of Knowlton’s Auto Salvage.

Yet immediately following Mr. Dennehy’s statement that, "The public threat was a primary reason the old South Sagamore Water District…shut off a well field about 400 feet from the property," Dennehy employs a clever editorial device to support his own personal assertion. He quotes Ralph Marks, superintendent of the Bourne Water District, (which took over the defunct Sagamore Water District), and this quote, according to Mr. Marks and other water district sources, was taken out of context.

Here is the quote Staff Writer Dennehy attaches to his own inaccurate conclusion that the salvage yard was responsible for the well field closure: "‘Any junkyard is going to be a problem, I don't care where it is,’ said Ralph Marks, superintendent of the Bourne Water District. ‘Especially if it's from years ago.’"

But the generalized, common sense opinion of Mr. Marks does not indicate in any fashion, much less stipulate, that Knowlton’s Auto Salvage was the cause of the closure of the Sagamore Well Field. Dennehy used the simple technique of taking the comment out of a larger interview context and placing it next to his own conclusive remarks, thereby providing substantiation for his personal assertions and conclusions.

Supt. Marks recently told The Bradley Report that not only was the quote taken out of context, but he reaffirmed that there were "other issues" involved in the closing of the well field that had nothing to do with Knowlton’s.

Ironically, The Cape Cod Times’ Dennehy seems to miss the fact one of his concluding paragraphs contradicts the editorial point-of-view he has been developing throughout the so-called news story. Toward the end of his story, Dennehy accurately states that the environmental documents show that whatever pollution problems exist, they are confined to the Knowlton’s property. Mr. Dennehy writes that, "According to the report, there hasn't been much migration. The state DEP is still reviewing the data to determine the next step."

So, if there hasn’t been much migration of any of the gasoline and whatever other automotive chemicals that are of concern, how could it be possible that Knowlton’s is responsible for the well field being closed, or of creating such a public health hazard?

Then at the very end of the Cape Cod Times story, staffer Dennehy seems to try to provide some balance to the preponderance of information already provided to the reader. To that end, Mr. Dennehy includes a comment from Mr. Anderson’s attorney.

Dennehy both quotes Knowlton’s attorney, Jon Fitch, and synopsizes his comments, as follows: "‘We acknowledge that any contamination is a serious situation,’ said Jonathan Fitch, attorney for Anderson. ‘But this is manageable. It's extremely manageable.’ Customers never consumed the contaminants, he said. And the changes on site assure that ‘anything that is found there is not reoccurring,’ he said. ‘We know that.’"

By quoting Mr. Fitch, Dennehy further establishes in the reader’s mind the idea that all of this information is fresh, that everything is up to date. But it is not. Mr. Fitch is quoted making honest remarks relating to the current situation, but he was never asked if suddenly Mr. Anderson and his family have decided they are not able to handle the financial aspects of the next phase of the cleanup, which is of course the central focus of Dennehy’s story, and which is underscored by its headline.

If Atty. Fitch had been asked whether the Anderson family was declaring such a financial inability, it is certain he would have told Mr. Dennehy that the assertion was untrue. He would have known if any such action was to be taken. Further, he would have been able to explain to Mr. Dennehy that he and his office not only still represent Mr. Anderson and his family, but are also currently working on preparing for the next phase of cleanup requirements.

None of that contradictory information was sought by Dennehy, who in his story then draws a polemical conclusion by involving, in a tortured context, the official from the state DEP’s Northeast Regional Office.

Again, Dennehy strongly draws conclusions and presents them to the Cape Cod Times readers as though all the information – including financial information relating to Knowlton’s Auto Salvage, the Anderson family business – is current and up to date as of this summer. He writes as follows: "Joe Ferson, spokesman for the DEP, said this week the agency is reviewing Anderson's financial information before determining whether he can afford the cleanup. If they find he cannot, Ferson said, Anderson can look for another party to buy the property and assume responsibility. Otherwise, the site could end up on a waiting list of some 7,000 chemical release points in the state. Ferson said the site wouldn’t likely be considered a top-tier priority, primarily because the surrounding drinking water supplies have been shut off."

The dramatic impression Dennehy creates is that of an immediate and an aggressive DEP investigation into Mr. Anderson’s finances, but no one from the DEP has requested new or further information from the Andersons or through their attorney, Mr. Fitch. There is no indication that Mr. Dennehy's assertion is so. Mr. Ferson, when contacted, couldn’t at first even remember what the issue was or what was involved, and then indicated he had simply offered Dennehy an overview of the process that might take place if John. Anderson and his family were in fact unable to work with the town and state to remedy his business problems. Dennehy and the Cape Cod Times then took that information and employed it to create a different and very detrimental impression among the Cape Cod Times’ readers.

How the DEP could make a current determination on information nearly a decade old, and in the face of clear evidence that the Andersons are investing in a cleanup, was obviously not of interest to the Cape Cod Times’ Staff Writer Dennehy. Nor was the fact that the Anderson family is working with another division of the DEP. Instead, Dennehy informs the Cape Cod Times readership that Mr. Ferson is "a spokesman for the DEP," rather than an apparently friendly source that could be unexpectedly and ingenuously tapped for information. Mr. Ferson, a former newspaper reporter, appears to also be a victim of the manipulative reporting involved in this Cape Cod Times story.

In conclusion, what seems apparent is that while the Cape Cod Times story by Mr. Dennehy has far exceeded all the traditional journalistic boundaries, and therefore appears to have exposed its publishers to liability, it is also an extreme example of the type of reporting that seems more and more prevalent in today’s newspaper world.

Mainstream newspapers, such as the Cape Cod Times, seem driven by a combination of editorial cutbacks, largely  in order to meet Wall Street demands for high net returns year after year, and further by some sense that unless a story is sensational it is not going to attract readers.

This latter phenomenon has roots in the success of supermarket tabloids and the various sensationalistic techniques of the simplistic television news media. It is not surprising that many newspaper readers are increasingly disenchanted; they often know that the stories they are reading are either inaccurate or lopsided, but they are unable to do anything to show their displeasure, other than to buy fewer newspapers and become more cynical. Mr. Dennehy’s story about Knowlton’s is, in the end, a classic example of what is wrong with today’s daily press.

8/13/04