Rape Trial Coverage
[Letter published in The Oak Ridger after 11 February 1996]
Recently The Oak Ridger published several letters critical of its coverage of a rape trial. I disagree with the writers, who claimed that The Oak Ridger reported on the trial in a sensationalistic manner. The details were horrible, certainly, but we have to look at the way they were presented and the effect they had on the reader. The effect they had on me was to elicit sympathy for the elderly victim and to convince me that the case against the defendant was sufficiently comprehensive and firm as to justify his conviction. Surely these are valid aims of journalism in reporting on a criminal trial.
The main Oak Ridger article on the trial made it clear how difficult it was for the victim to bring herself to testify, to say to a roomful of people, “This dreadful thing happened to me”, while in the presence of her attacker. The citing of details by The Oak Ridger also gave the reader a sense of how the crime came to occur and how inadequate the defendant’s reply to the charges was.
We must learn from the experiences of others in order to grow in wisdom, since we cannot (and would not want to) have every experience ourselves. Often the way we do this is to hear story after story of a common human experience, such as childbirth or divorce. The details – which show the difference between cases – are important in our understanding of why people make the choices and mistakes they do, how people deal with loss or pain, and even how lucky we are to escape some experiences. The sad story of this rape would not have been nearly as instructive, I think, without our hearing some of the painful details.
The Oak Ridger received similar criticism of a boating accident in which one man lost his arm and another his leg. The article that was criticized reported the observations of a young woman who had just completed a first aid course; she was fortunately near the boat at the time and went to the aid of the injured. The article showed very clearly, I thought, how the accident occurred, how this young person kept her head even at the awful sight of the two injured men, and how she tended them until professional help arrived. Again, the details, while difficult to read about, gave us a more complete picture of what had happened and how her support of the victims helped save their lives.
The Knoxville News-Sentinel was criticized for showing a photograph of tiny children who were in a fire set by a man who was angry at their mother; it was alleged that the publication of the photograph violated their dignity. Great care must be exercised by a newspaper in choosing whether or not to publish photographs, since these have an even greater impact than words. But I thought it was important for us all to see the photograph, in which the firemen were shown tending to the children as they lay out in the open air. Why was that a violation of their dignity, when it surely touched the heart of every reader to see the poor little things? Arousing public sympathy for them was important in this case, since they were poor and the adults in their lives were alleged to be involved in drugs. It would be so much easier to write off the loss of their little lives as “just one of those things” if we had not seen the picture; I think it increased public pressure on the police to catch the arsonist.
I hope that the rape victim’s friends and relatives, whether they knew or guessed that she was the victim, will write or call her and praise her for her courage in testifying. I hope that your story helps her and other people to see that this testimony has prevented that human scum who attacked her from preying on others and may inspire other victims to be as brave. And I hope that those who criticize The Oak Ridger and other newspapers for their usually restrained narrations of criminal acts and trials will reconsider whether this coverage, on balance, will in fact do more good than harm even for the victim.
The Knoxville News-Sentinel’s Printing of the Picture of a Dead Man
[Published by the Knoxville News-Sentinel, March 28, 1996]
Several people protested your printing a picture of a man who was crushed between a machine he was driving and a roof parapet. They thought that it was an affront to the man’s dignity. I disagree: the picture served a purpose that the man himself might not have objected to.
I work in a safety and health field. When I saw that picture, I exclaimed in dismay, “Oh, how did that happen?” I showed my children (ages 14 and 11) the picture and read them the article. I did this to teach them compassion for an unfortunate fellow being and to educate them as to how accidents can happen. The picture was very important because children grasp visual images better than word pictures. They could see the poor man and those who rushed to help him in vain.
I have heard talks by people who investigate industrial accidents, and I have also talked to people involved in safety incidents. One fins that those involved will most often answer questions frankly if they know that the purpose of the question is to find out what went wrong, not to fix blame. These people frequently say that they “don’t want it to happen to anyone else>”
A young man who had several fingers smashed in a machine explained to me that in reaching in to press the control button, he put his fingers inadvertently in a clearance space for a metal bar at the same time the bar swept down. I said it was a shame that all of the bugs in the apparatus had not been discovered before its recent installation, and he replied ruefully that he guessed that he was one of the bugs.
But it seemed to comfort him that I and others were sympathetic and that his boss was taking his injury seriously and was planning to put a guard on the machine so that the design flaw would not claim another victim.
I wonder if that poor man who died on the roof would have had this attitude as well. Would he have objected to the publication of that picture of him, if he thought that it would have made a difference – if some other employer wuld study this accident for ways to prevent its happening to any of his people, if some other worker would use extra care in driving such a machine because of what he could see could demonstrably happen, if the manufacturer of the machine would look for ways to modify its deisgn to make it less likely to go out of control?
Might the dead man have wanted the picture to be published if he thought that he was the last one to be killed in such a way?
I think that picture was pathetic, not in the same sense that the word is used today but in the sense of arousing our concern and sympathy. I hope the man’s family and friends, distressed though they may be by his death, will see that such a reaction by the public is constructive and positive.
I hope they will also realize that the publication of the picture could help others to focus their attention on understanding this unusual accident and on preventing its recurrence.
Perhaps the picture may even produce the same effect as if the man had donated his organs; the sad image, captured in the moments following his death, might help save the lives of others.
On My Whistleblower Case
[Letter to the Knoxville News-Sentinel, sent 11/3/03 via the KNS Web site]
I would like to add the following about my DOE whistleblower case, which was discussed in a recent article by Randy Kenner. The testimony at my hearing about how “people did not want to work with” me and I “could not attract customers” was given by the very safety division managers who laid me off. No “customers” — e.g., operational managers — were called to testify. I believe this was because my lawyer would have been able to cross-examine them and inquire into their motives, including their safety shortcutting. Some of the 11 people mentioned were not my “customers” and I believe that some would not have agreed in this forum that they had “complained” about me.
Also, as the hearing judge himself noted, there was no documentary evidence offered about this. [Deputy Division Director] Dr. Sims said he had had memos and notes of phone calls but did not produce them. UT-Battelle’s lawyer asked to submit the memos post-hearing, but my lawyer, Margaret Held, objected that she would not be able to cross-examine on them. The judge did not dismiss UT-B’s request outright, but “took the matter under advisement”.
I was the first witness. So near the end of the hearing, I wanted a chance to contradict some aspects of the defense’s case by making a rebuttal statement, but the judge would not allow it. Thus I was not able to counter on the record some statements about technical aspects, such as a radiation shielding disagreement, and some about personnel aspects, such as irrelevant criticisms of my tenacity. The judge agreed to put it on the record that he had refused, but he did not do so.
DOE’s [Head of the Office of Hearings and Appeals George] Breznay was quoted as saying that comments about unattractiveness to customers were “the type of speculative problem often used to justify dismissal of a whistleblower”. Anyone can see from the whistleblower proceeding transcripts and decisions on the Web that there is a lot of ad hominem attacking going on. If you can’t counter a person on his performance or technical mastery, you have to attack his character. That is what UT-B [UT-Battelle] has done to try to discredit me.
Correction Regarding The Oak Ridger’s Article on My Whistleblower Book
[Published in The Oak Ridger, June 22, 2006]
I appreciate The Oak Ridger’s writing an article about the posting of my book on my whistleblower experiences on the Internet. However, there were two points that were left out of the article, points that I emphasized not only to your reporter but to the Site-Specific Advisory Board, the Local Oversight Committee, and the Citizens’ Advisory Panel during my brief appearances before them to announce the completion of my book.
First, I believe that DOE is ultimately to blame for the various safety and health incidents on the Oak Ridge Reservation because of its irresponsibility and its failure to provide proper oversight of its contractors. I think it is interesting that although your reporter asked DOE for comment for the article, they chose not to comment, i.e., they are taking no official notice of my book. Second, every taxpayer should know that UT-Battelle paid me a settlement of over $280,000 — and that DOE reimbursed them for half of that even though the DOE whistleblower legal process had found UT-B to be at fault. I know that DOE paid the half because I obtained FOIA documents that say so. Why The Oak Ridger did not consider that to be news is a mystery to me.
Whistleblower Issues
[Letter Sent to Metropulse (Knoxville), published after August 19, 2009]
Regarding your recent article on Joe Carson, the DOE whistleblower: Some people go along with whatever they are told to do at work; some put up with it as long as they can and then leave; and a very few, like Joe, stand their ground and stay in their jobs, trying to change things. [“The Curious Case of Joe Carson—Whistleblower,” cover story by Chris Barrett, July 23, 2009]
I myself was a whistleblower. As a health physicist and radiological engineer, I reported radiation protection violations and concerns up the chain of command at Oak Ridge National Laboratory for years, including to some field DOE people, to no avail. My radiological engineering group and I were harassed and retaliated against repeatedly while the rad protection procedures were dumbed down alarmingly. Our management went along with it because as my division director told me, if we didn’t, operational management would outsource our work and we would lose our jobs. A DOE safety person told me that his hands were tied by orders from on high—he could look at only blatant violations. In 2000 I finally went to local DOE headquarters and submitted a complaint about the safety problems and the retaliations. I was laid off shortly afterward.
This mass layoff was supposedly for financial reasons, but the safety and health people were laid off at a much higher rate than the operational and administrative people. This sent a message about what the remaining folks would have to do to keep their jobs. I had been personally targeted in the layoff, as documents later showed: I had reported at length about the problems to the manager who personally chose the layoffees. The one retained person in my group was the least senior and least experienced, but operational people preferred him because he played ball with them.
I pursued a case in the DOE whistleblower system. Metro Pulse wrote about it in 2002, interviewing me and my lawyer, Margaret Held. We won the case, which went all the way up to the Secretary of Energy. To forestall a DOE-embarrassing appeal to the court of appeals by the contractor, DOE pressured us to settle. I received a reduced settlement in return for no confidentiality clause—I wanted to be able to write about all that had happened. (My book about the case is posted on the Internet; just Google me.) I did not ask for my job back; at the settlement meeting, the contractor reps said my job had disappeared and they would “have to find something for you to do.” This was in front of the Washington facilitator, a DOE lawyer who knew it was illegal for them to say that but who did not object. So I knew I would not be allowed to do any real rad protection work and DOE would not protect me.
Metro Pulse readers should know that they as taxpayers paid for half my settlement, or about $140,000, as a FOIA request showed. I believe that DOE also paid the contractor’s legal fees, although these are not supposed to be chargeable to DOE unless the contractor wins. The plaintiff, of course, pays his own fees.
Like Joe, I found that DOE provides no support to the plaintiff. DOE allegedly does not take sides and therefore could not help me by providing documents or aiding discovery on my case, even though safety issues were involved. Meanwhile, the contractor had DOE’s ear at all times.
In the whistleblower hearing, my manager testified that he had a sheaf of E-mail messages and telephone notes complaining about me, but he could not produce them. My brave supervisor testified that there had also been various messages praising my work. A courageous colleague from a criticality group testified favorably about my work and described retaliation against him by one of the same operational groups that had retaliated against me.
The last time I saw Joe, years ago, he told me that he did have some real work to do. But it seems clear that Joe has not had the career he might otherwise have had, which is true of me, too. I eventually got another full-time job, but it was on the national sick worker compensation project (EEOICPA), where I was not affecting the health or safety of any living person. I worked there for 4.5 years, until the government down-funded the project in 2006 and my whole group was laid off. I haven’t been able to find another job in my field; I say that it may be because of my age, but deep down I think it is because I am wearing the scarlet letter W. I am a successful tutor of college and high school students, but it is a marginal living.
DOE’s actual attitude toward health and safety whistleblowers is clearly revealed in Joe’s and my cases. DOE likes to blame any adverse safety impacts on culture problems with the contractors, but DOE needs to clean its own house first. DOE talks the talk, but they don’t walk the walk by making strong rules and consistently enforcing them.
To those who think that whistleblowers are just another species of rat, I ask, if you were a worker who was dealing with hazards, who would you want to examine the safety and health aspects of your facility and your job: Joe and me or some of those “go along to get along” guys?
Odd Choice of What Appears On the Front Page
[Published? Letter sent to the Knoxville News Sentinel on April 17, 2010]
I am puzzled as to why the [Knoxville] News-Sentinel chose to announce Kenny Chesney’s visit to Knoxville on Page 1 while relegating to an interior page the story of Heritage High School grad Jennifer Higdon’s winning a Pulitzer Prize for music. Mr. Chesney seems to be a nice guy and a philanthropist; of course, he has also sold a few CDs and won a Grammy or two. So it is understandable that the News-Sentinel would hail his return to East Tennessee. But Ms. Higdon has won a Grammy too and her Pulitzer would surely rank high in terms of a lifetime achievement because of its “degree of difficulty”. The News-Sentinel should give more consideration to prioritizing the news on the basis of whether it is ephemeral or of historic significance.
Further Comments About Handicapped Issues at Thompson-Boling Arena
[Published? Letter sent to the Knoxville News Sentinel, December 23 2013]
I received many responses to my 12/8/13 column “Obstacles Mar Concert at UT Arena”, on the difficulties that I, as a physically impaired person, had in attending the Eagles concert at Thompson-Boling Arena [TBA]. The author of the very first response declared that he was “disgusted by your whining”. In a hectoring, superior manner, he said that my difficulties were my own fault for not anticipating the access problems. Two other people who told me I should have arrived sooner were nicer, saying, “Oh, you just didn’t know, let me inform you”.
In reply, I reminded them that my friend had called TBA to find out about access and should have been told these things then. What “everybody knows” about sporting events is not the same as what anybody knows about a once-in-a-blue-moon entertainment event.
Various people dealing with handicapped issues wrote. One said that when her husband became disabled they learned that “handicap accessible” did not always mean “handicap friendly”. As she noted, “Handicapped parking on inclines – what were they thinking?”
Two handicapped people employed for years by UT said that UT has been unaccommodating and unsympathetic to their access problems. One has not been allowed to park in TBA-used parking areas for short periods even when the TBA event wouldn’t start for six hours. The other noted that UT’s response is that they have the legally required number of handicapped spaces. Both state that handicapped parking in areas they use is often full.
Been there, done that. At Pellissippi State, I use the staff parking lot beside my building. In years past I frequently found that all the regular and handicap spaces were full. I would have to park on the far side of another building. I then had to walk up stairs to a long walkway and down other stairs to my building. I protested, but the administration told me that they had the legal number of spaces overall. It was the location that was important; why not move some of the always-free spaces at the other end of campus? They declined.
I worked in UT radiation safety one year, making frequent visits to many labs across the campus. I was stronger then, but parking and access were still an issue. I even had to use my own suitcase dolly to tote my work materials.
Decades ago, I had a friend who worked for city government. Her boss exclaimed impatiently one day that the wheelchair people had complained about the lack of curb cutouts and the city provided them, but then the blind people complained because they couldn’t find the curb with their canes. “These people,” he declared, “have got to realize that they are handicapped!” My tenderhearted friend was shocked, but I wasn’t.
I hope that UT takes all of this seriously. UT “owns” TBA, but who owns UT? The public, including the physically challenged.
Personal Letter to the Editor of the Knoxville News-Sentinel, Mr. McElroy, 28 October 2016
Your recent article on the subject of journalists’ donating preferentially to Hillary Clinton’s campaign seems ironic in light of the opinion you expressed in an article some months ago that most journalists are not biased toward the left. I think that the bias and the preferential donations are no surprise to alert readers of periodicals and magazines of opinion and listeners to NPR and television new shows.
My main basis for saying this, in addition to reading your newspaper daily for 27 years and listening to NPR, is my decades of subscribing to three publications: The New Republic (liberal), The American Spectator (conservative), and REASON (libertarian). I do not read every word of every article, but I do read a lot of each, including the book reviews. (I also subscribed for many years to TIME magazine, reading it cover to cover, every word, until its articles got so bloated; I read the Chicago Tribune for the 13 years I lived in Chicago.)
After many years, I believe that I have a good idea what topics, people, types of events, etc., are of interest to the publishers of the three magazines. I have seen what they emphasize and what they omit; how they defend and excuse the politicians they favor and criticize those they don’t favor; and how they present their philosophical positions.
It seems clear to me that for the most part, the national television news, NPR, and most newspapers track very well with The New Republic in terms of their assumptions, choice of topics, approach to describing events, emphases, etc. This shouldn’t bother me too much since I often agree with liberal positions anyway, but it does, because even when the media are espousing a position I agree with, I am troubled by the often evident bias. One can’t tell when one is getting “the straight dope”.
A slogan that NPR has recently used is “All the news you need to know”. That seems very arrogant to me. Certainly some conservative voices in the media are as arrogant, but they do not appear to have the reach of NPR, newspapers, and the national news. However, conservatives in the South still have a tremendous influence in certain areas because they are associated with religion more strongly than liberals are. So one reason why I find myself most interested in hearing what libertarians have to say is that they are less smug, less inclined to present themselves as possessing the one absolute truth than the deep-dyed liberals and conservatives are.
As you can imagine, while the current political scene may appear to be a real zoo to most citizens, it is even more so to people like me, who try to arrive at their positions on an issue on the basis of more general principles than just political convictions because they hear many points of view.
I will say that the News Sentinel seems to be pretty balanced on local issues, with several notable exceptions such as the failure to question and investigate more than superficially the actions of various local developers who get tax breaks and public subsidies. But on national issues? Not so much.
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
Letter About Philanthropist Doctor Tom Kim
[Letter published in the Knoxville News Sentinel on or after February 3, 2017;
Dr. Kim later called to thank me] Dr. Tom Kim’s recent column on his mother’s long struggle to raise her children while their father was away resonated with me because I too had a mother like that. Dr. Kim’s evident gratitude toward his mother speaks well of him. Her example was surely an inspiration to him to become the moral icon he is today. We are fortunate to have him among us.
