I read Andrea Estes’ October 2 article “Makepeace defends ‘distasteful’ posts about environmental activist” with mixed feelings: satisfaction, annoyance and curiosity. Satisfaction because Estes reported that A.D. Makepeace attorney Michael McVeigh admitted that he was the person who developed the Meg Cost Us Millions Facebook page. Not only is it good to have that out in the open but publishing that information validates Meg Sheehan’s claims. Annoyance because the rest of the content is hardly news; Estes simply rehashes material she’s written on the subject in two previous articles, Jan. 1 and May 16 of this year. There is no reason to write this – there is no news here. A better story would be the outcome of Meg Sheehan’s suit, which has not yet been decided. My curiosity came because I wonder why Estes writes so negatively about Sheehan in all three of her articles. All Estes’ articles contain the same information about the case and her tone in all is dismissive of Sheehan’s allegations. All three articles contain almost verbatim language used by the defendants to describe Meg’s appearance. Why does Estes harp on this? And why do all three articles use the only unflattering photo I’ve ever seen of Meg Sheehan? In January I sent the PI several current and more realistic photos of Meg but no one has used them. In our culture, attacking a woman’s appearance is a common way to convey contempt. It’s no coincidence that Estes repeatedly printed the same sneering words and unusually unflattering photo in all three articles to attack a woman of significant accomplishment and substance.
I read Sheehan’s lawsuit in its entirety and was very moved by her accounts of harassment. We see it daily in stories of kids bullied at school or online. I am a supporter of Community Land & Water Coalition and for over two years have seen Meg Sheehan in action in court, in Zoning Boards of Appeal and Earth Removal committee hearings, at Planning Board and Conservation Commission hearings. She is extremely sharp-witted and in command of her facts. She is concise. She does not beat around the bush and use platitudes to soften what she has to say. I’ve witnessed the chairmen at ERC and ZBA hearings in both Plymouth and Carver regularly silence her. I’ve seen Meg interact with CLWC volunteers and with the public. She is warm and engaging, asks for input and listens well. It’s clear that she doesn’t set herself apart from her constituents but rather as one among them. She can retrieve information from memory at the drop of a hat and explain it clearly. This is a woman to be taken seriously and also to appreciate.
I have a deep commitment to truth and justice. I live in a community in which I’m regularly ridiculed when I speak. When I post environmental information in our public spaces, someone regularly removes it. I find this frustrating and at times demoralizing that other people do not seem to place much value on how we care for each other and the environment. I think some people might engage in this kind of behavior so they can avoid taking a hard look at what they really believe, what they really value and how they want to live their lives. What kind of world they want to live in. I think Estes exemplifies this type of behavior, writing a derisive and frivolous October 2 article that doesn’t say much but implies a lot. It’s very clear whose side she’s on. Perhaps she’s helping Makepeace grind their ax after Meg Sheehan won a landmark case against their sand mining activities in Carver last month (Troy Currence and others vs. A.D. Makepeace Co. and others, Appeals Court case No. 24-P-666.)
– Linda Jacobs
Editor’s note: Reporter Andrea Estes did not select the photos that accompanied her stories.