Mea Culpa, Mostly

OK, we fell for it. For all those who claim that liberal interest groups don't spin like conservatives, pay attention. In a press release from late December 2006 (and other releases dating back to at least 2004), the public-agency hound watch organization PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which has many park employees as members) had intimated that employees of the Grand Canyon have been asked not to tell tourists about the scientifically-derived, geologic age of the national landmark. But to be fair, a whole lot of other people have fallen for this too, including the seeming "gag order" on employees coughing up to canyon's real age. Admittedly, that may just say more about the company we keep, but the fact is, Seattlest let its guard down.

There's no gag order. Really, PEER is irked about a certain non-scientific book still approved by the NPS for sale in the gift store (rangers and other interpretive staff do not have a say in what books are offered for sale, that is determined by the federal administrators back in D.C.). A few people saw this for what it really was. Annie over at the Stranger's blog called us out on this, as did our own Seattlest Ronald (not to mention the one person at Digg who can apparently form a complete, logical sentence). And yes, we do typically take press releases with a huge hunk of salt, but this one came to us from our father. A geologist, and also a wise, generally even-minded level thinker. But sadly, PEER was not leveling with any of us.

By opening with "Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature," the press release was off to a disingenuous start. We do believe their intentions are genuine, just not the cleverly obtuse language they used. Jeff Rook, who wrote the release, said that others have indeed contacted the PEER office and complained of being misled. "If they felt misled by it, we're sorry." There is no intentional obfuscation required when answering questions about the chasm's age in response to Creationist queries or pressure. "At least not this week" quips Rook. Rangers and interpretive staff are free to discuss its scientific history with impunity.

The PR rep for the park service, Dave Barna (arguably, not someone PEER trusts all that much, obviously), adamantly told us that the Grand Canyon is as old as scientists say it is, and no-one who works for the park would be asked to say otherwise. He also said he'd send us their official statement on the matter, which we have yet to receive. (PEER asserts that at one point, an administrator in the Canyon's office would reply to media requests about the age of the Grand Canyon with "No comment." But one fool does not a conspiracy make.)

So PEER, coming from someone who would like to see the real issue dealt with (foolish non-scientific book in places dedicated to science that are not actually analogous to a library despite what Dave Barna would like us to believe): please don't stoop to such tactics. If you're frustrated with what you perceive to be "deliberate ambiguity" on the part of the NPS when it comes to that inane book and the agency's ongoing inaction, please be precise about that. Otherwise you're just as guilty of the same frustrating, easily misinterpreted behavior.