Sloppy Journalism or Sloppy Apology?

Fired Up! readers might recall that on May 20, 2005, Fired Up! cited an April 18, 2005 Post Dispatch article regarding televangelist Joyce Meyer.

On June 19, 2005, the Managing Editor and Assistant Managing Editor of the Post Dispatch issued a 577 word apology, claiming errors in the PD stories of April 18 and May 1. (Please click here to read the Fired Up! apology regarding errors contained in this post.)

After a careful review of the original stories, the press releases issued by Joyce Meyer Ministries(JMM), and the PD apology, I have concluded that the sloppiest work in the whole affair, was the work performed by the Managing Editor and the Assistant Managing Editor in the apology. 

The apology, which reads like it was written by an attorney for Joyce Meyer, and probably was after bullying by said attorneys, does not attempt to independently verify anything, instead it merely parrots the rhetoric put out by Meyer's spokesperson.  By doing so, they discredit themselves far more than any minor errors contained in the original stories.

Let's go through some of the issues one by one:

Salary

Minutes of ministry board meetings show that for 2002 and 2003, the board approved compensation packages of up to $900,000 for Joyce Meyer and up to $450,000 for her husband.

and later in the apology

The minutes and public financial statements do not disclose the salaries actually received...

But according to a JMM press release:

For example, in 2002 Dave and Joyce received a combined total of 1.29 million dollars...

The PD Managing Editor's inability to verify this information from a US Newswire press release, dated a full month prior to their "apology", before hanging her reporter out to dry, does not meet Fired Up!'s standards for fairness, accuracy or basic human decency.

Personal Use of Planes and Automobiles

The PD apology says that:

Any personal use of the ministry's corporate plane or automobiles was to be deducted from those totals. A ministry spokesman did not say that the Meyers received free use of the plane and vehicles, as was stated in the May 1 story.

The May 1 PD Story originally stated:

Among the details included in the financial statements, board minutes and other documents Meyer provided to the assessor of Jefferson County in a dispute over the tax-exempt status of its headquarters property:

The board agreed to provide the couple with free personal use of a corporate jet and luxury cars, a $2 million home where all bills are paid by the ministry and a separate $50,000-a-year housing allowance.

So, the original story did not say that a JMM spokesman said those things, it said that the documents the reporter had obtained said those things.

Be that as it may, it does appear that the original story was not completely accurate on this point.  It appears that any personal use of the jet or luxury automobiles was to be charged against the Meyer's salary.

However, what neither the PD apology, nor the JMM press releases makes clear is what accounting system within JMM was in place to ensure that any such trips were actually charged against Joyce and Dave Meyers and exactly who within JMM was likely to have the standing to hand them such an invoice.

The lack of a board and/or management with any independence from Joyce and Dave Meyer made the collection of any such invoices unlikely, and apparently the managment of the PD did not even bother to ask JMM if any such charges were ever made or collected from the Meyers for their personal use of jets and luxury automobiles.  This seems a fairly obvious question.

This lapse does not meet our standards for fairness and accuracy.

Housing

The PD apology claims that:

The story erroneously stated that the ministry paid all bills related to the ministry parsonage.

The two original stories state that "all bills related to the ministry parsonage were paid by JMM.

However, in at least one place, the story makes explicit that it refers to:

...property taxes, utilities and landscaping and renovations made to family members' personal preferences.

I think the average fair-minded reader would conclude that constitutes "most" if not "all," of the important bills for a $2 million dollar home.

The public thrashing of a reporter who was making an earnest effort to bring to the public's attention the abuse of a position of power for the personal gain of Joyce Meyer, for such a minor error, does not meet our standards of fairness or accuracy.

Hefty?:

From the apology:

Additionally, the spokesman for the ministry never used the word "hefty" to describe Joyce Meyer's salary.

The original story says:

(JMM spokesman) Sutherland noted that Meyer has never denied getting a hefty salary.

"We believe that the bible teaches that if you give, you will be blessed," Sutherland said.  "She's been saying it from the stage for years."

A $1.3 million salary for the Meyer couple is hefty no matter who says it. 

The statement, followed by the quote from Sutherland accurately portrays both Sutherland's and JMM's view on the salary issue.  The apology is what creates the misimpression.  This does not meet our standards for fairness and accuracy.

Royalties:

From the apology:

The spokesman for the ministry did not decline to disclose the amount of royalties received by Joyce Meyer personally for her books and tapes as reported in the May 1 story. He said the information was unavailable to him and is a matter between the publisher and Joyce Meyer. The amount of royalties Meyer receives is not disclosed in the ministry's financial statements since, according to the ministry, no royalties are paid on resources distributed by the ministry.

The original story had this to say about royalties:

Meyer also receives a portion of the $3 million a year in royalties earned from books and tapes sold at bookstores, Sutherland said.  He declined to provide a specific figure.  Previously, that money had gone to the ministry.

However, in JMM press releases put out to defend the Meyer's compensation arrangements, Sutherland is able to say with accuracy that:

Because of a combination of Joyce allowing the ministry to receive her royalties, her honorariums, and book sales, in the last seven years Dave and Joyce have blessed the ministry with over 14 million dollars above what they have received in ministry salaries.

So, when defending Meyer, Sutherland is able to say with great accuracy what the amount of the royalties have been in the past.  Presumably, he would be able to say what royalties are coming into the ministry under the current compensation arrangement.  From there, a little simple math would tell you that the difference between what had previously come into the minisitry, minus what is currently coming into the minisitry, is a least a rough estimate of what Meyer is now collecting personally. 

Sutherland declined to perform such a calculation.  The reporter pointed that out. 

The management of the paper publicly flogged said reporter for it.  In addition, the managment made no effort to obtain this information on their own to better inform their readers. 

In addition, in their apology, the management of the PD stated:

According to the ministry, ministry employees do not work on books and tapes for which Meyer personally receives royalties. The ministry disputes claims by critics to the contrary

PD managment apparently did not press JMM to substantiate this claim, nor did the PD attempt to independently verify this assertion in any way.

This does not meet our standards for fairness and accuracy.

An independent board:

From the PD apology:

An April 18 news article reported that all four of Meyer's children sit on the ministry's board. According to the ministry, only two of Meyer's children currently serve on the ministry's board. The four family members currently on the board do not constitute a majority of the board as reported on April 18.

There is no dispute that family members play a key role in JMM.  JMM provides housing for several members of the family, some serve on the board, and several family members are employed by JMM.

The apology creates the false impression that the board is independent of Joyce Meyer.  Here is a diagram of the board as of 2003.   Perhaps there has been an attempt to improve the situation since that time.  If that is the case, that's what the PD should have said.  And if fact, the PD could have taken credit for it, given that they did a multi-part series in 2003 pointing out many of the problems with JMM governance. 

Instead, they lent the credibility of the paper to the assertion by JMM flacks, that JMM is not a closely controlled enterprise.

This does not meet our standards for fairness and accuracy.

Idle Speculation by Fired Up! (just my humble opinion):

Though the PD claims that JMM did not threaten legal action against the paper, the PD does acknowledge that attorneys from JMM were in contact with the management of the paper.

The PD should have been proud that they had a reporter who was willing to stand up to powerful interests and to point out the important questions that JMM should be answering, given that they enjoy a tax exempt status.

Instead, the management of the paper was cowed by the bullying of the JMM attorneys. 

Shame on them!

Editor's note: There were errors contained in this post.  We do not want you to be misinformed, so please take a moment to read this correction and apology from Fired Up! at this time.