The farmers in Tioga, Chemung and Tompkins counties have a tough row to hoe because the local press is whipping their readers into a frenzy against gas drilling. The local press’s articles are more ideological than factual and there is no attempt to fairness or accuracy. When the distortions in their articles are brought to their attention, there is no attempt correct the falsehoods.

One of the offending papers is the Broader View Weekly which spreads anti-drilling propaganda in the Tioga and Chemung counties. There had been many clear distortions in the paper so I contacted Karen Frick who owns the Broader View Weekly hoping that when alerted to the falsehoods, she would print a correction. We exchanged E-mails a few times but my efforts were in vain. The issue was articles based on a presentation by Ithacan Walter Hang who made drilling related pollution claims, which were disputed by Commissioner Alexander Grannis of the Sate of New York Department of Environmental Conservation, the DEC. Below an E-mail which had no response:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rainer Langstedt to karfrick

show details Feb 16

Att: Karen Frick

Thanks for the response. I do not lose any sleep over the fact that you refused to print my letter re damage to landowners by Congressman Hinchey’s activities. What I have written about is damage to the landowners due to articles in your paper, which seem to be factually challenged.

I have asked about:

1.) Brine spill in the Chenunda Creek, which was reported in your paper on Dec3. 2009 and denied by Commissioner Grannis. How did you confirm the brine in the creek?

2.) Jan 14, 2010 issue had an article claiming " by Grannis’s count an additional 53 spills resulted from brine spills" I cannot find it in the Grannis’s letter.

3.) Your paper reports in the Jan 14, 2010 issue that Mr. Grannis said that plugging of wells transporting of gas, brine disposal was "completely unrelated to oil or gas drilling or production activity." This is not what my copy of the Grannis letter says. That quote was from a different paragraph relating to lightning strikes and such. Can you back your story or was it a distortion?

You did bring up a new issue when you said: "—re Grannis’s letter—" read page 2 of the letter. He (Grannis) lumps brine spills into other things under the heading ‘unrelated to gas drilling’." I say good for him! If you read that page he identifies the spills origin as "breaks in chemical plant’s brine supply". I suppose that most chemical plants use salts for some process, and accidents happen. Please explain what an accident in a chemical plant manufacturing for example soap, has to do gas drilling? Yet you lumped the industrial accidents into gas drilling statistics.

The thrust of the propaganda attempt that you are involved in seems to be manipulate your readers to stop drilling. If successful, the damage to the area that your paper serves is in excess of 600 million dollars per year. Property owners are already screwed over by the drilling companies and left wing politicians, and there is not much us property owners can do about it immediately. But we certainly can cancel subscriptions immediately when papers join the frenzy.

Best regards,

Rainer Langstedt

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

The factually challenged articles mentioned in the letter were written by Sue Smith-Heavenrich. In an other anti-drilling article in the March 4, 2010 issue of Broader View Weekly she quotes a "specialist" who is unhappy with present New York regulations to have claimed that "In the European Union (EU), the burden of proof falls on corporations to prove that their actions have caused no harm to the public or the environment." That did not sound right to me. Why should anyone have to prove they are not guilty? A call to a man who is the head of the engineering department of a municipality in the European Union, confirmed my suspicion that there is no such law. The "fact " was again made up. There is no requirement to prove your innocence. Perhaps the "specialist" got the European Union and The Soviet Union mixed up? In the Soviet Union people were shot or sent to the slave labor camps even when they could prove their innocence.  It  is alarming to see that there are people and journalists who hold up as ideal some regime where people will have to prove their innocence.