Naked City

It wasn't as dramatic as The New York Times' self-flagellation in the Jayson Blair mess, but it will do. Last Sunday, down at the bottom of page E1, Austin American-Statesman Managing Editor Fred Zipp acknowledged that the daily's controversial coverage in January and February of a supposed toxic crisis at Barton Springs was flawed. Of course, that's not what Zipp thought he was doing. "We've considered the substance of the complaints" from City Hall and the citizenry, Zipp wrote, "and reviewed the factual basis for the various conclusions we have presented. We've found the objections unpersuasive. We stand by our stories."

That is, except the parts where the Statesman suggests Barton Springs and Barton Creek are unsafe for swimming. That would have included the headline of the original Jan. 19 report: "Toxic chemicals taint Barton waters." Zipp admits that perhaps "waters" was the wrong word to use but makes the frankly ridiculous assertion that, despite the daily's promiscuous use of words like "carcinogenic" and "Superfund," the Statesman never suggested it was unsafe to swim in those waters. (The daily's Web poll on Jan. 19 asked, "Now that you've read this report, do you feel safe swimming in Barton Creek?")

Rather, that claim is a "straw man" set up by Statesman detractors, specifically Council Member Daryl Slusher, who has written lengthy reports demolishing the daily's coverage. "We suggest that the city continue to study the situation with the goal of protecting the public's safety, rather than disproving some conclusion erroneously attributed to the American-Statesman," Zipp wrote.

Meanwhile, while making brave noises about the "integrity" of the coverage, Zipp acknowledged that the Statesman had misinterpreted some of its scientific data and had erred in giving lavish play to its unproven speculations that a long-ago coal-gas waste dump was the source of toxins found on the hillside below the Barton Creek Park Place Apartments. The city had already identified this hot spot -- and set aside money to clean it up -- long before the daily came along. (It was a late-night colloquy -- in public, on Chapter 6 -- about the hillside between Slusher and city environmental monitor Nancy McClintock during the Stratus hearings last summer that tipped the Statesman to the story in the first place.)

Zipp made no mention of the Jan. 19 column by Statesman Editor Rich Oppel claiming the city had ignored the Barton Springs "crisis" because it cared more about salamanders than people. Such blatant politicizing of its "objective" study of water quality is why Slusher and this paper and hordes of citizens and state and federal experts launched the "backlash" against the Statesman that Zipp says spawned an internal review. "We agree with [Slusher] on one point: There's a canyon separating us and the health and environmental experts engaged by the city to study the situation. Unlike Slusher, we're at a loss as to how to bridge the canyon." Owning up to the daily's own biases and sins might help.