Florida Democratic gubernatorial candidate Nikki Fried falsely claimed reporters who examined her insurance policies on sugar cane burning had been paid by environmental activists.
Fried’s remark adopted the publication of a 6,000-word investigation by The Palm Seaside Publish into Fried’s promise as agriculture commissioner to make “historic modifications” to sugar cane harvesting.
The Publish’s Aug. 11 report discovered that her modifications to the state’s burn program failed to handle the well being dangers individuals in Palm Seaside County could face due to air pollution. It additionally famous that Fried’s political committee receives contributions from teams largely funded by the sugar trade.
The sugar trade’s follow of burning acres of cane fields is a harvesting approach to rid the plant of its robust outer layer, in keeping with the Publish.
Fried went past merely dismissing the story when a reporter overlaying one in every of her marketing campaign occasions requested her about its findings. She mentioned the Sierra Membership, an environmental group, needed her to ban sugar cane burning.
“The Sierra Membership had one mission and one mission solely,” Fried mentioned in Tallahassee on Aug. 14. “It’s unlucky they didn’t acknowledge all the opposite great achievements our division made.”
When pressed additional, she mentioned: “We additionally know they paid for these reporters.”
It’s common for a politician to say unfavorable protection is inaccurate or biased. However Fried’s declare instructed journalistic corruption.
PolitiFact discovered no proof to help Fried’s accusation. The commissioner’s workplace mentioned it could not reply particular questions in regards to the declare. Her marketing campaign didn’t return a number of requests for remark.
The Sierra Membership doesn’t fund the Palm Seaside Publish
After we requested the Publish about Fried’s declare, Government Editor Rick Christie mentioned not one of the reporters, photographers or editors assigned to the newest investigation had been paid by an out of doors entity, not to mention the Sierra Membership.
“It’s unlucky that the agriculture commissioner felt the necessity to provoke and propagate an outright falsehood,” Christie mentioned. “We stand by our reporting.”
Fried’s feedback had been criticized by different Publish reporters who called her rhetoric “harmful.” Fried elaborated on Twitter after the marketing campaign cease: “It’s one thing I’ve heard — hope it’s not true.”
She didn’t make clear the place she heard the allegation. Fried’s workplace solely pointed to an Aug. 15 article by the Capitolist to help her declare.
The Capitolist is a enterprise and politics web site with a questionable relationship with the state’s largest energy utility, Florida Energy & mild.
Consultants employed by Florida Energy & Gentle purchased a controlling stake within the web site forward of the 2020 election, the Herald reported. Articles had been additionally revealed to be pre-screened by the consultants.
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tbt/A54J3NIPAND7NGKW5DE3WVGIFY.png "Get insights into Florida politics")
Get insights into Florida politics
Subscribe to our free Buzz publication
Political editor Emily L. Mahoney will ship you a rundown on native, state and nationwide politics protection each Thursday.
You’re all signed up!
Need extra of our free, weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get began.
Florida Energy & Gentle used the Capitolist to “settle scores and bend the desire of regulators, politicians and the general public,” the Herald wrote.
The Capitolist article Fried cited linked to its criticism of a 2021 investigation into sugar cane burning that the Palm Seaside Publish printed in partnership with ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative information website.
As a part of its Native Reporting Community, ProPublica offers grants to native information organizations for particular investigative journalism tasks. A ProPublica grant funded the Publish’s 2021 investigation.
In July 2021, the Capitolist mentioned that the Publish partnering with ProPublica for the investigation amounted to “a troubling and apparent controversy.” It also attempted to hyperlink ProPublica to the Everglades Basis, a gaggle working to revive the Everglades.
The Capitolist mentioned each ProPublica and the Everglades Basis acquired funding from the Knight Basis, a longtime funder of journalism, communities and the humanities.
Robin Sparkman, ProPublica’s president, instructed PolitiFact that funders don’t have a say wherein organizations the publication companions with and which tales it investigates.
“They see our tales when the general public sees them,” Sparkman mentioned. “Moreover, we’ve got by no means solicited or acquired funding from The Sierra Membership or The Everglades Basis.”
The Capitolist reported that the Everglades Basis invested within the Sierra Membership, nevertheless it didn’t set up a reputable connection between the Sierra Membership and the Publish.
The Sierra Membership additionally denied paying for information protection of sugar cane harvesting.
“There’s completely no reality to Commissioner Fried’s assertion,” mentioned Patrick Ferguson, organizing consultant for the Sierra Membership of Florida.
Our ruling
Fried mentioned the Sierra Membership “paid for these reporters.”
There’s no proof for Fried’s declare. The Palm Seaside Publish and Sierra Membership rebutted Fried’s accusation in regards to the newspaper’s protection of sugar cane burning. An article highlighted by Fried’s workplace didn’t uncover such a hyperlink, relying as an alternative on a series of affiliation with no direct monetary relationship.
Fried instructed unfavorable protection was a results of journalistic corruption. Her declare is just not solely incorrect however ridiculous. Pants on Fireplace!
