Paragraph by Paragraph Response to The Tennessean

By A. A. Brooks

The following is a paragraph by paragraph response to a Letter to the Oak Ridger by Frank Sutherland, Editor of The Tennessean,

Monday, November 10, 1997

Editor defends paper's stories

To The Oak Ridger:

We have received considerable response to our year-long series of stories on health concerns in  and around Oak Ridge.

Undoubtedly true, but then the tabloids sell well too and appeal to some people.

While we have received much praise for the stories, critics have challenged portions of the stories and their intent. Some have said The Tennessean seeks to make war on Oak Ridge. Nothing could be further from the truth.

No doubt but the praise of one side does not constitute the majority opinion of the community. As to the intent, it scarcely is a full endorsement of our community environment. It seems the opposite of war is peace. The articles do nor read like an offer of friendship. If The Tennessean is a friend of Oak Ridge then we have no enemies save Iraq.

What possible motive could we have? We wrote the stories because a large number of residents in Oak Ridge asked us to report on the issues there.

Motives are often arcane but since you ask: 1) Selling papers by pandering to fear, 2) Winning awards, 3) Killing the nuclear industry, 4) local personal ties are also rumored. There is no doubt that you should have reported on the issues but have you no responsibility to report both sides in reasonably equal proportion? Has the media no responsibility for the consequences of its reporting?

Because The Tennessean is not widely circulated in East Tennessee and because numerous  conclusions have been reached without the benefit of reading the stories, we have decided to put all the stories on the Internet for you to read. Every word we have written this year is available to you from our Web page. Our address is www.Tennessean.com.

True The Tennessean is not widely circulated in East Tennessee but the TOXIC BURN articles have been carefully clipped and read by many interested citizens. Much of the contrary opinion is based on the appropriate reading as well as many hours of studying the problem an listening to both public and private testimony. Much of the dissenting opinion is well-informed. The Tennessean is not a misunderstood innocent. In putting the articles on Internet you have neglected to include letters to the editor, published and unpublished.

Some people, expressing concerns for the future of their community or saying we have "nothing good" to say about Oak Ridge, have attempted to initiate letter-writing campaigns. We welcome such letters, but we would urge that the citizens of East Tennessee read what we have written themselves, instead of depending on what others may say.

True, Oak Ridgers have concerns for the future as we do for the ill workers and citizens. True, we write letters but there is little evidence they are published by The Tennessean nor included on your web page. How do we enter into a dialogue with you under these circumstances? One way is by these pages.

If you read through the stories, you will find many positive things have been written about Oak Ridge, from its contributions to national defense to its being on the cutting edge of new technologies. You will also find a personal column by me that says I owed my father's life to work done at Oak Ridge.

While visiting Japan, I heard more positive statements about Oak Ridge from our past enemies.        I believe a more accurate characterization of the TOXIC BURN series is: Damning by faint praise. A few compliments among countless negative statements. I hope that everyone else that owes a life to the Manhattan Project has a more positive attitude. Most I have met have said, 'Thank you'.

Our editorials have not demeaned Oak Ridge in any way but have said that the state and nation owe Oak Ridge for its historic contributions to our way of life.

Perhaps 'demean' is the wrong word. How about 'defamed'?

The editorials also said health issues in the area should be studied and resolved, one way or another.

Agreed, but why do you not give balanced coverage to the many past DOE health studies in an attempt to understand the health effects of an emerging technology? The same can be said for the several studies of the K-25 worker problem and the many attempts DOE has made to address the problem.

Please check out the stories at Tennessean.com and then join the dialogue. It's too important an issue to neglect.

Why don't you check out the stories on: http://home.comcast.net/~brooks50/ as well as http://home.comcast.net/~brooks50/or_tenn.html. Perhaps then we can have a meaningful dialogue. Yes, The worker and resident health is too important to neglect. However, the problem is very complicated and consideration must be given to all responsible views until the causes and treatments are accomplished. Otherwise, we may only encourage pursuit of the wrong objective, again. This includes the view that the workers are ill but we don't know why.

I invite you to join in the positive coalitions that are trying to solve these problems.

Frank Sutherland
Vice president and editor
The Tennessean
110 Broadway
Nashville, TN 37203

---

Copyright 1997 The Oak Ridger - Reprinted by permission