With a public hearing on the proposed Moark expansion scheduled for next month, I am still perplexed about some earlier coverage of the issue by the Neosho Daily News.
In the Feb. 18 Daily Editor Buzz Ball wrote about the renowned House No. 6, Moark's facility in Roggen, Colo. I incorrectly assumed at the time, not having seen the actual issue, but only the internet version of the story, that Ball had not been there. I was unaware that photos accompanied the story. If I had not seen Ball's byline on the article, I would have assumed it was written by Moark's public relations staff.
One example: "House No. 6 is a state-of-the-art hen-laying facility that is quickly setting the standard for the industry." The quotes were put around the sentence by me. There were none in the story. This was Ball saying how wonderful the Moark facility was.
Another statement written by Ball, but not attributed to any Moark official: "In Neosho, the byproduct will never be in the outside environment until it is transported by trucks. It will be stored inside and will be transferred to trucks inside." Again, the quotes were added by me to denote that I am quoting from Ball's article. The statement was unattributed.
Yet a third statement: "When the hens lay the eggs, they gently roll onto a smaller white conveyor belt which slowly takes the eggs to a facility where they are further processed for shipping." First, I question whether the sentence refers to the chickens or the eggs (which brings up another debate entirely). Again, I added the quotes. The statement is apparently Ball's since it is not attributed to anyone.
Finally: "The success of House No. 6 has been staggering. More than 97 percent of the eggs at the Colorado facility are ready for human consumption; less than one-half of one percent of the eggs are broken in the entire process; the odor that is usually very apparent at hen-laying facilities is virtually eliminated." Again, this statement is not attributed to anyone. It apparently is Ball saying that this is the way it is. I would have liked to have seen all of these statements attributed to the Moark officials.
The article was written after Ball took a one-day trip to Roggen, on Wednesday, Feb. 9. Ball told me that the story was original "based on interview and first-hand experience."
He said, "We flew out from KCI on Frontier Airlines at approximately 10:30 a.m. and returned that evening about 6:45 p.m. So it was a very long day."
This is one of those times when the reader definitely needed to be provided with more information than what Ball's article provided. I will assume that the Daily paid for its editor to make a one-day trip to Roggen, Colo., to report on the Moark facility since it is an important story for its readers.
If Moark officials or someone else paid for the trip, the readers have every right to have that information. Even if Moark footed Ball's bill, it does not mean that it bought the coverage by any means. Nevertheless, the reader has to be able to make up his or her own mind and needs to have all of the information in order to do so.
Clearly, the story was advantageous to Moark, being published on the same day that the company announced the proposed expansion of its Neosho facility.
In the article announcing the expansion, Ball wrote, "The innovative design planned for the new facility emulates European models, which are renowned for their ability to easily blend into populated urban areas." That statement is not attributed to Moark's Dan Hudgens, though other such statements in the article are.
If the trip was taken Feb. 9, it also means that Ball was fully aware that Moark was going to announce the expansion nine days later. It also means he had time to either collect more information or have one of his reporters do so.
I would like to know from the people of Roggen, Colo., if there have been any complaints about the Moark facility. If they say there haven't been, then that would go a long way toward alleviating the fears of local residents.
I would also like to have had immediate reaction to the Moark statement from those who have opposed any expansion here, as well as a quick summary of the problems the company faced during the same time period when it was attempting to place a facility in southeast Kansas. Why were those people so adamantly opposed to a company that has the kind of smell-eliminating technology that Moark is apparently using in Roggen?
What about the Colorado equivalent of the Department of Natural Resources? Has it had problems with Moark. If not, that would be another piece of information that would lessen local concerns.
And how about the company's record in Missouri? Has it been a good neighbor? Have there been complaints? If so, what has been the nature of those complaints?
The Neosho Daily News needs to clarify its coverage of Moark. The Daily has done a good job in recent days of providing space for opponents of the expansion. Maybe it should take another trip to Roggen and spend a few hours really looking into the neighborhood in which the Moark facility is located. Or at the least, get on the phone and make a few calls.