Letter to Judith Burns, Dow Jones Newswires:
Dear Ms. Burns:
In your story yesterday for Dow Jones Newswires on Save the World Air (STWA) and Ford, you made an inaccurate statement. You stated:
"Ford Motor Co. (F) said Thursday that it never agreed to test an auto-emissions product manufactured by Save the World Air Inc. (ZERO), despite claims to the contrary by the Australian company."
But STWA never claimed that Ford had agreed to a test. On June 29, STWA issued a press release with the following statements:
"Save The World Air, Inc. (STWA) has been involved in discussions with Ford Motor Co. (F, news, msgs) about testing the Zero EmissionFuel Saver (Z.E.F.S.) device.
Save The World Air, Inc. (STWA) is looking foreward to working with Ford Motor Co. (F, news, msgs) to set up a test on a new car."
Taken alone, the second sentence may seem ambiguous as to the phrase "set up a test." Did they mean they were looking forward to working with Ford on the logistics of a test already agreed upon? Or, did they mean they were looking forward to working with Ford to reach an agreement to conduct a test?
However, the seeming ambiguity of the phrase "set up a test" disappears when viewed in the context of the sentence which immediately precedes the sentence containing the phrase. All that was claimed is that STWA had been "involved in discussions with Ford" about testing the device. The key word here is "discussions." They did not claim to have an agreement. In the context of a statement about "discussions" without any claim of having an agreement, STWA's statement that they were looking forward to working with Ford to "set up a test" should not be interpreted as implying any claim of having an agreement. The most reasonable interpretation is that STWA was looking forward to reaching an agreement to conduct a test. In other words, to set up a test.
It is unclear from your story whether the statement about STWA having claimed to have a test agreement with Ford should be attributed to Ford spokesperson Brendan Prebo, or whether that is your own interpretation.
In regard to STWA's claim that Ford had expressed interest in testing the device, your story states that Mr. Prebo disputed that claim:
""we're not testing their product and we didn't have any intention of doing so" in the future."
Did you question the accuracy of Mr. Prebo's knowledge on this issue? In a Bloomberg News story from July 7, Mr. Prebo seemed to dispute whether there had even been discussions between STWA and Ford. Finally, on July 20, Mr. Prebo acknowledged that "Ford engineers did talk with Save the World Air." It seems that Mr. Prebo is not always in the habit of checking his facts before issuing statements. Did you make an attempt to talk to Mike Biondo and Chinu Bhavsar from Ford, whom STWA claims initiated contact and expressed interest in testing the device? Considering that Mr. Prebo's knowledge concerning STWA's relationship to Ford had recently been shown to be lacking, would it not have been appropriate to contact others at Ford?
I believe you owe it to your readers and to STWA to issue a clarification or retraction regarding your statement that STWA claimed that Ford had agreed to test its device. Also, in the interest of fairness, I believe you should further investigate and report on the issue of whether Ford employees had ever expressed interest in testing the device, contrary to Mr. Prebo's assertions.
For the record, I am an individual shareholder in STWA and have written to you upon my own initiative and without the knowledge or authorization of STWA. I look forward to your reply. |
