An Incorrect Correction Request

How Not to Do Your Job: $220K-a-year State Flack Demands Correction of Article that Was Accurate and From A Different News Site

Thanks again to the California Globe for running this completely correct article. You can visit the website at: https://californiaglobe.com/

Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Though it may not seem that way at times, reporters are human beings and as human beings we can on occasion make a mistake.

Typically, after a story has run, if there is a possible error a call or email arrives from the offended party saying “such and such is wrong – fix it now!”

Sometimes, these requests are correct  - on the minor side they involve typos or misspellings or mis-identifiers – writing “assistant director of the department of departments” instead of “deputy assistant director of the department of departments” – that sort of thing.

They can be more serious, though, as when a headline writer forgets to put the word “Not” in front of the word “Guilty.”

Extremely rarely though are corrections requested for stories another reporter wrote and that ran in a different publication.

Even more extremely rarely are such corrections requested to “fix” a story that is not at all incorrect.

But that is what the $220,000-per-year (including benefits) California Department of Public Health Communications Director Ali Bay asked of the California Globe (via this writer) earlier this week.

The story involves the infamous “lab” discovered in Reedley - https://californiaglobe.com/articles/reedley-the-giant-slayer/ - and how members of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors claimed the Newsom administration muzzled them, stopping the release of information about the situation to the public.

But the story she was irked by actually appeared in the San Joaquin Valley Sun and can be found here: https://sjvsun.com/news/fresno/newsom-administration-muzzled-fresno-co-disclosure-of-reedley-covid-lab-county-officials-claim/ .

It should be noted that the story quotes officials giving their view of the situation – it does not go further and does not contain a typically “correctable” error like a wrong date, a mis-quote, etc..  As with many such stories, it offers multiple perspectives on events and even includes a quote from a Fresno County public information officer contradicting a supervisor saying the state really wasn’t that aggressive in their demands.

But Bay, it seems, was not pleased with what the supervisors said at all, hence her request to the Globe/this writer to do something about it.

In other words, she was asking us to correct a mistake that we did not publish and did not even occur.

A reminder - $220,000 per year in taxpayer dollars.

And here is the email request in all its poorly-worded glory:

See your story on the Reedley warehouse, and it’s not accurate. I’m requesting you correct the headline and story ASAP.

CDPH never asked Fresno County to withhold a press release on this issue, a fact that has already been corroborated by the county’s public information officer, and the claims being made by a county supervisor that the state asked for a news release be withheld are patently false. In fact, as is often the case in investigations involving multiple agencies, CDPH worked closely with the county to draft a holding statement should questions arise, and helped ensure that information was accurate and didn’t interfere with the state investigation, which is still underway. The state has worked side by side with local and federal authorities to protect public safety and public health throughout the course of this ongoing investigation and helped swiftly shut down the unlicensed warehouse. 

And how do we know that, in fact, the state did try to contain/muzzle the story, despite what Bay claimed?  Because the San Joaquin Valley Sun – perturbed over her false and absurd request – obtained the emails that show Bay and the state did - https://sjvsun.com/covid-19/emails-reveal-back-and-forth-between-newsom-admin-fresno-co-over-reedley-lab-response/ in fact exert significant control over the “messaging” and timing of the release of any information to the public.

Interestingly, Bay added the following information unrelated to the correction request:

Additional background:

Shortly after discovery of the storage warehouse in Reedley, the FBI was alerted and requested both state and local agencies to stand by until the conclusion of an investigation. That investigation concluded in February, when the FBI approved state and local agencies to resume their investigation.

At that time, state and local officials conducted a walkthrough of the storage warehouse in Reedley and determined that there was no imminent threat to public safety.

As new state and local investigations unfolded, all agencies continued to agree that no there was no imminent threat to public safety. In April, Fresno County Department of Public Health issued the first of three public Health Officer Orders.

It is also important to note that the facility at the location in Reedley was not an operating laboratory, but instead a storage facility where medical and medical manufacturing devices were being stored following Universal Meditech, Inc.’s departure from a location in Fresno.

Let me know if you have questions.

Thanks,

Ali

This information from Bay did spark certain questions, such as “is the FBI investigation actually concluded?” as she seems to imply and “how is imminent threat to public safety” defined?

In responding to her, we did ask Bay if she would care to discuss the “lab” situation in general - “Let me know if you have questions” -  as it is of significant concern not only to the local community but has garnered international attention.

In fact, we asked three times.

Still waiting to hear back.

And these are the people who were in charge of covid.