As WUWT readers know, Andrew Revkin of the New York Times was the first to “authenticate” the stolen Heartland documents. Only one problem, one of the documents, the one that “gave the story legs” (in journo parlance) was a fake. That fake document, combined with Revkin’s “authentication” then helped release an avalanche of coverage, most of it without even checking with the sources first. These newshounds adopted a pack mentality and went chasing the fox.

In a pushback to this lack of journalistic integrity, the Charles Koch Foundation has issued a strongly worded denunciation on their opinion the New York Times’ reporting of the Fakegate affair.

One might expect the Times to have some chagrin about its reporting that was based on material obtained by fraud, motivated by an ulterior ideological agenda, and suspect in its authenticity. Yet even though that source lied, cheated, and stole – and refuses to answer any further question from the Times or anyone – reporter Andrew Revkin nonetheless found room to praise him, writing, “It’s enormously creditable that Peter Gleick has owned up to his terrible error in judgment.” Readers would be right to wonder if the Times itself is able to own up to mistakes on this story.

I used to have more respect for Andrew Revkin than many other reporters, because he was much more open and accessible. But like Gleick, he’s really damaged himself in this episode. Now he’s just any other reporter with a cause. Speaking of damage…

I’ve been damaged as well, with all sorts of false and malicious reports. The Guardian’s early coverage for example from Goldenberg and Hickman didn’t even wait for a response from me. though Goldenberg asked for comment, she didn’t wait for a response. The news organ of the British government, BBC’s Richard Black, also didn’t seek comment. He just published his opinion. And so it went with serial regurgitators worldwide.

Locally, one such person who has been leading the libeling of me is familiar to many readers here from his hilariously inept interactions in blog comments. That’s Dr. Mark Stemen, of Chico State University. On his Facebook page he labeled me as a “Koch-whore” (I have screencaps which I’ll share later) without so much as asking me a question first. And, in an email to me he went from simple libel to malicious libel by saying “and I’ve made sure everyone knows it”.

It didn’t matter to him that Koch wasn’t even involved with climate funding to Heartland when I pointed it out, he just took another tack of denigration. The hate from this man and his students he’s telling about me on his Facebook page is palpable. Problem is, he’s been using publicly funded resources to push his political activism, something we’ve seen time and again in Climategate.

Of course Dr. Stemen is part of CSUC’s sustainability cabal committee with the City of Chico, who uses his publicly funded bully pulpit to dictate to our town what others should do in living our lives in the green meme. When you are given such godlike power (conveyed with tenure without consequences) over others, I suppose there’s no need to check facts first. Slime first, ask questions later.

The irrational hatred spewing from Dr. Mark Stemen and others over the word “Koch” in any context belies serious shortcomings in being factual and rational messengers in education, a role he was hired to do.

Here’s the Koch letter to NYT:

Charles Koch Foundation Confronts the New York Times for Misleading Readers

The following letter was sent by Tonya Mullins of the Charles Koch Foundation to Art Brisbane, Public Editor, at the New York Times on February 24, 2012:

Dear Mr. Brisbane:

In previous correspondence with Melissa Cohlmia of Koch Industries, you invited any further examples of flawed journalism on the news side. The Times’s recent piece on the Charles Koch Foundation [Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science; 2/15/12] is one of the more egregious examples to date. Here are our specific concerns:

As soon as we read the piece, we pointed out to editors that they had been misinformed. The article stated, “The documents say that the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation…was expected to contribute $200,000 this year [to Heartland Institute].” That is demonstrably false and we said so in writing and on the record in an email. But editor Nancy Kenney replied a day later to ask if we could be “more explicit” (correspondence attached below). A public statement from the Charles Koch Foundation had been out for days at that point and the authenticity of the document the Times relied on had been disavowed by Heartland and thoroughly discredited by other news outlets. Yet, the Times would not update or clarify the story to include these facts.

The Times never reached out to us before publication, despite quoting several other parties that were cited. Ms. Kenney claims to “regret that our reporters didn’t call you” and yet when we asked her for an explanation (twice) she ignored the question and the information we provided remains withheld from readers.

The piece tried to convey that the Charles Koch Foundation had funded Heartland’s work on climate science – based on the headline, lede, and the sentences immediately preceding and after the mention of the Foundation’s donation, all of which emphasize climate science. That is false, and we explained to Ms. Kenney that our $25,000 donation was specifically for healthcare research. Ms. Kenney insists that we are “misreading” the article and that it is somehow “clear from the overall context” that the donation was for “purposes other than climate advocacy.” Her position is puzzling in light of the actual content and context, yet when we asked for explanation she gave none.

Since the piece ran, it has come to light that some of the documents the Times cited were obtained by an activist who, by his own admission, perpetrated a fraud on Heartland. One of the documents, a purported cover memo, is now widely regarded as wholly fabricated – a view supported by what both we and Heartland have separately told the paper.

However, the paper’s subsequent reporting still omits any mention of our direct and salient statements to the Times about that apparent fabrication. Readers are still left with the false impression about the size, duration, and intent of our donation. Our good faith questions about why the Times failed to call us and won’t include our viewpoint remain unanswered. Not one of the five Times reporters that have written on the topic – Leslie Kaufman, Justin Gillis, John Border, Felicity Barringer, and Andrew Revkin – even attempted to contact us for input or reaction.

One might expect the Times to have some chagrin about its reporting that was based on material obtained by fraud, motivated by an ulterior ideological agenda, and suspect in its authenticity. Yet even though that source lied, cheated, and stole – and refuses to answer any further question from the Times or anyone – reporter Andrew Revkin nonetheless found room to praise him, writing, “It’s enormously creditable that Peter Gleick has owned up to his terrible error in judgment.” Readers would be right to wonder if the Times itself is able to own up to mistakes on this story.

If you could look into this matter we would appreciate your feedback.

Sincerely,

Tonya Mullins

Director of Communications

Charles Koch Foundation

Share this: Print

Email

Twitter

Facebook

Pinterest

LinkedIn

Reddit



Like this: Like Loading...