Still disgusted
I grew up in Disgusta and was intrigued by Elizabeth Peavey’s account of my former hometown [“Downtown, Maine: Augusta,” April 2009]. Her research was solid and I enjoyed her account.
Peavey focused primarily on the “cultural,” historic and “culinary” aspects of the area. She seems to have overlooked the soulless malaise looming over this dreary, post-industrial center of government, the almost complete lack of any kind of community vibrancy, and the wearily provincial defeatism of the population.
Why is Maine’s capital so pathetic and downbeat? Next time I visit (I’m in no hurry) I’ll ask the good folks at Cosmic Charlie’s.
— Patrick Bonsant, Portland
Planet Aid’s flack fires back
Your article, “A scam of planetary proportions?”[April 2009], was so outrageously inaccurate and false that it would be laughable were it not for the damage you inflict by publishing such irresponsible journalism.
First of all, there is no “scandal” inside Planet Aid except the one your reporter wants to perpetuate by relying on previously discredited information and source material that is specious at best and just plain wrong at worst. Craig Idlebrook based his entire article on old newspaper articles, one dubious Web site and some phone or e-mail exchanges with people who have little knowledge of, and no experience with, Planet Aid. He was given ample information that would have deterred a respectable journalist from his fallacious thesis, but chose to ignore it because it didn’t jibe with the story he wanted to write.
For example, the methods of Mr. Borochoff and the American Institute of Philanthropy, on which Idlebrook bestows a great deal of authority, have been thoroughly discredited by Congressional testimony of real charity industry experts. Borochoff’s AIP has given failing grades to such reputable enterprises as the AMVETS, the Military Order of the Purple Heart Service Foundation, and the Shriner’s Hospital for Children. By that token Planet Aid is in good company, but these are facts your readers could have used to determine reliability and truth.
The statement that the Better Business Bureau “refuses to recognize Planet Aid as a charity” is false. Information on Planet Aid can be found on the BBB’s Wise Giving Alliance Web site. The article could have pointed out that Planet Aid meets 17 of the 20 criteria used by the BBB to evaluate charities and that it has a reasonable disagreement regarding whether or not recycling of used clothing is an environmental program in accordance with Planet Aid’s mission. The BBB, in fact, was kind enough to allow Planet Aid to post its points of contention on its Web site.
One of the main critics Idelebrook relied on, Zahara Heckscher, has never had any connection to Planet Aid. She was apparently a volunteer in Africa for a few months more than 20 years ago, 10 years before Planet Aid was even formed. She now is a self-styled expert and provides eager quotes for anyone who calls. In keeping with this tactic, the five-year-old Chicago Tribune story that Idelbrook cites as source material was actually about an entirely different company than Planet Aid.
The rest of the report is largely a fairy tale that uses inaccurate information and connects disparate and questionable information from Internet bloggers, disgruntled people and competing charities who simply see shadows when there is no sun. Planet Aid has no financial or managerial connection to the people and organizations cited in the story. The use of inflammatory and unrelated material to bolster the article’s case is alarming.
Idlebrook contends Planet Aid’s activities are hurting other charities in Portland, but readers might be surprised to learn that its total collected volume last year amounted to less than one percent of all recycled clothes in Portland. The Salvation Army, for reasons unexplored in the piece, is overstating Planet Aid’s impact.
Idlebrook tells readers that Planet Aid’s “giving-to-fundraising ratios have not appreciably improved” in the last five years, but doesn’t mention that those ratios have steadily risen and have increased every year it has been in operation.
Last year, Planet Aid was recognized at a White House conference on charitable giving. Its partnership with the United States Department of Agriculture, which your report denigrates, is producing real, tangible and positive results for the most economically deprived populations in Africa.
Planet Aid is a tiny organization — about 200 people nationwide — but last year it recycled more than 50 million tons of clothes nationwide that likely would have ended up clogging area landfills. Only 24,000 pounds were collected in the four boxes in Portland.
We would have welcomed a visit from your reporter. Had he taken the time to leave his residence, he could have witnessed firsthand the good work we do and could have talked to our employees about their backgrounds and why they choose to work there. We could have shown him presentations and videos about the burgeoning development programs Planet Aid oversees and he could have seen people hard at work for worthy causes.
Unfortunately, it’s much easier to lift material from other sources, do Google searches and exchange e-mails with a few disgruntled people than it is to do real reporting.
— Doug Bailey, Newton, Mass.
The writer is a public relations representative paid by Planet Aid.
