After months of overseeing a series of controversial moves at the FDA press office,Beth Martino has resigned to take a job with the American Health Care Association as a public affairs advisor. Her departure caps a brief, but tumultuous reign for the 31-year-old former press aide to Kathleen Sebelius, the former Kansas governor who is now Department of Human Health & Services secretary.
As much as she attempted to manage the news, Martino succeeded in making news herself. In December, her office purged a few senior specialists who are 50 years and older. Three staffers were let go and a fourth, career employee Donna Avallone, 62, was allegedly stripped of her title and reassigned by Carl Chitwood, a 37-year-old Martino appointee, although he later denied forcing anyone out of a job (back story).
Then, the FDA media office was chastised by the Association of Health Care Journalists for issuing an embargo that barred journalists from seeking expert comment prior to when the embargo lifted, a move the group decried as running contrary to the White House policy on transparency and throttling the ability to scrutinize and understand taxpayer-funded actions (see this).
More recently, the FDA Inspector General began investigating hiring practices after Chitwood, the recently appointed director of web communications, resigned amid allegations that he hired a former colleague for an FDA job, even though other individuals were better qualified for the position (read here). It is unclear if the probe will continue now that both Martino and Chitwood are gone.
In discussing her new job, Martino tells PR Week that "I think it'll be a good opportunity for me to capitalize on some of the public health work that I've done at the FDA, and bring to bare (sic) some of the knowledge. Also, I'm looking forward to joining the team over there and working on some of the projects they have coming up." Her replacement, by the way, is Meghan Scott, who is currently with the press office.
Presumbly, the American Health Care Association is ready for the brand of news management Martino offers. The AHCA is run by another former Kansas governor, Mark Parkinson, and Martino had worked for him as well.
Hat tip to AssurX
9 Comments
I will admit it - I had to look this up. (But that's what lunchtime is for ...)
And "What does [sic] mean?" Source: http://ask.yahoo.com/20050824.html
"...We always wondered why these three little letters appear next to misspellings and other mistakes. As with many grammatical issues, we learned that Latin is to blame.
"Sic" is Latin for "thus." Yeah, that didn't clear it up for us either. But apparently, since the 1880s, writers have used [sic] next to quotations that include errors.
This little notation means, "Hey, I know this quote looks wrong, but it was that way when I found it, so don't blame me." Maybe the original text used archaic spelling or the original writer just messed up. But the person who's quoting that text is aware of the earlier mistake and wants you to know it.
[Sic] is shorthand for all that, at least to scholarly types
I've long since resigned myself to the proposition that literacy is no longer a qualification for a career in journalism. But one who is not "phased" [sic] by not knowing the difference between "bringing to bare" (whatever that is) and "bringing to bear" should consider taking a different career "tact" [sic].
I could go on...
At the risk of being churlish, if you're going to [sic] someone else's bad spelling, you should make sure that you don't spell currently with three Rs two sentences later...
Dear Jonathan,
Thank you for your note and for pointing out the typo. Yes, I know how to spell 'currently.' The mistake was made simply because I was moving too fast for my own good.
As the reporter, writer, editor and copy editor here, typos and out-and-out spelling mistakes do occur. It is always regrettable, but I do my best to avoid them and will always fix them.
As to your other point, I included the (sic) for the simple reason that I had to remain true to the quote, because it first appeared elsewhere, even though it was either a spelling mistake or a mental lapse that allowed the PR Week writer to choose the wrong word. And so I felt obligated to leave 'bare' alone and added the qualifier, if you will.
No, I do not think you appear churlish, but I grind out a lot of copy and, sometimes unfortunately, such typos happen. However, as I stated, I work hard to make things easy to read and hope that any flubs will not offend.
Regards ed
We don't know from the article whether it was Martino who made the error, or whether PR News transcribed the interview poorly.
To my ear, her comments were spoken, not taken from a written statement, in which case the bare/bear error belongs to PR News. (A journal which I would hardly call "scholarly".)
[sic] is both commonly used and useful; surprising that you've never encountered it before. Guess it's not a norm on Twitter.
Another example of a political appointee failing upward.
Ed Silverman, if the critics most ardent complaints are a few typos; I would have to say you're doing a pretty damned good job here.
good riddance to the little know-it-all.
Also: Yes, GREAT job Ed.
The whole episode reminds me of that 80's wish "Die Yuppie Scum...."