UPDATE: 7:30PM PST I’ve been offline much of today in travel and then immediately attending the Heartland dinner, so I’m hours late with this update. Apparently, the story has now been restored, and there’s a a second critical story. – Anthony
Yesterday while traveling I got some urgent emails on my phone alerting me to a story by Suzanne Goldenberg (at left) of the Guardian, I read it from a Starbucks in Susanville, CA while on my way to photograph the eclipse. I sighed and went on, because there was nothing I could do about it at the time except shake my head at the lack of journalism on display.
Readers may recall Goldenberg is the same reporter who broke the Fakegate story there originally, without bothering to check the authenticity of the Heartland documents first, or even to await confirmation from me on questions before publishing a smear. It seems she wrote a story “clearing” Peter Gleick of the document forgery, but the story had no references, no quotes, no sources, nothing.
That story has now “disappeared” from the Guardian website. Here’s the original screencap from Google cache:
and now if you visit this URL:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/20/peter-gleick-cleared-heartland
You get a 404:
A search for the key words on the Guardian website also reveals nothing. There’s nothing at Gleicks Pacific Institute either:
http://www.pacinst.org/press_center/
It seems editors at the Guardian have taken the story down, perhaps because it was baseless and/or premature?
James Sexton finds some interesting things connected to Goldenberg’s “journalism”:
Thanks to reader Kim, I did a little research on the corespondent who reported this ……… story? It seems our friend, Suzanne Goldenberg, has a past with departing from the truth already.
Apparently she was the lead reporter in the bombed ambulance hoax.
In 2006 she reported:
On the night of July 23, 2006, an Israeli aircraft intentionally fired missiles at and struck two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances performing rescue operations, causing huge explosions that injured everyone inside the vehicles. Or so says the global media, including Time magazine, the BBC, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and thousands of other outlets around the world. If true, the incident would have been an egregious and indefensible violation of the Geneva Convention, and would constitute a war crime committed by the state of Israel.
But there’s one problem: It never happened.
http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/22533_Al-Guardian_Shills_for_Ambulance_Story
Or just Google Suzanne Goldenberg ambulance hoax.
Maybe this will be enough for the Guardian to boot her? Fool me once…fool me twice…
When your reporter becomes the news, maybe you should rethink having that reporter. Just my opinion.
I’m off to catch a plane…stories and moderation light today.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I would note, the Guardian has never backed away from the ambulance story…….. as impossible as it is.
And yet she is still employed. At least the WaPo canned Cooke.
Janet Cooke – Jimmy’s World. Sorry for the shorthand.
Aaronson, Jones, and Rutherford weren’t in New York, either.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/20/heartland-institute-future-staff-cash?CMP=twt_iph
If what she reports above is true then there is a better case to sue Gleick No ?
Would love to comment, but can’t. This is just so embarrassing being British, the kind of times you just want to say, “Stop the World, I want to et off!” Trust me chaps & chappesses of the interweb thingy, we’re not all this useless or biased!
Fak(?)gate?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Antonius Wattsus.
Goldenberg and the Guardian are moving into vacuum left by the News of the World disappearance, it seems.
What is the point of consuming “News” media that lies to the reader? The Guardian is heading towards Onion status, without the cachet of being funny.
It’s the Guardian for heaven’s sake. If the subject is trendy and/or green, then getting the facts right on a story is a rare bonus.
The only people who read it are: left wing teachers, BBC employees and strange people who always insist on wearing sandals and sensible sweaters.
Four months after the fact, the Heartland Instutute remains silent on the subject of the authenticity of other 90 pages worth of documents that Glieck released.
This is what passes for MSM journalism these days. If you want real journalism, you have to go to the web and various blogs like WUWT and Jo Nova. You are not going to get it anywhere else.
Perhaps the story was sent to her by an anonymous gmail account? All she has is an unsigned, undated PDF, strangely worded, apparently scanned on an Epson scanner? /sarc
From Tips & Notes, this Suzanne Goldenberg story is still up:
DJ says:
May 20, 2012 at 5:20 pm
You guys see this???
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/20/heartland-institute-future-staff-cash
With this history, it would be logical to surmise that she is doing EXACTLY what the Guardian wants her to do, and that her practice of printing outright lies and slander is completely supported from the top, and that it is indeed the official policy of the Guardian to print politically amenable lies and slander, and to grudgingly walk it back and/or lie about what they’ve done (disappearing stories) if it turns out to be a little bit too outrageous to get away with.
Put another way, the National Enquirer has *Far* more integrity and much higher standards than the Guardian does, and I am completely serious about that comparison. The Guardian is more on the level of the Weekly World News of Batboy fame – except even the WWN is much more funny than the grim, commissar run Guardian ever thought about being.
There is no reason for any thinking person to ever again consider the Guardian a serious source of information, or to give anything they publish the name of “journalism”.
It probably was an accidental press release, she is probably working with a group of alarmists to to undo Gleick’s damage. The story probably had to be pulled as the fake report that clears him wasn’t ready yet. The Guardian newspaper is not fit for fish and chips.
Go easy on her. She may be working for the government, passing information on her saudi/syrian/ iranian/russian handler to them.
Goldenberg, just another hater trying to close down free speech…
Facts never seem to get in the way when trying to prop up the AGW narrative.
This is the same Guardian that cannot spell its own name. I call it The Grauniad. This typo was very common a few years ago. It now seems that their typo’s are the reporters themselves.
How can Gleick ever be cleared of being a liar, a thief and a con artist?
He admitted to it all!
Phil C says:
May 21, 2012 at 5:40 am
Four months after the fact, the Heartland Instutute remains silent on the subject of the authenticity of other 90 pages worth of documents that Glieck released.
Those 90 pages were banal, to say the least. The subject of this thread is the Guardian ‘disappearing’ a story about Glieck – which is far from banal. Do you have any comment on that?
They have no reason to do that until their civil and/or criminal case against Gleick comes to trial.
Phil C, still up to his old tricks of demanding others do all of his thinking for him.
Just for grins, here’s the rundown, genius: almost all of the pile that Gleick released was extremely dull everyday corporate stuff, the kind that clogs up our desks everyday. There was nothing “damning” in any of it – or perhaps you can quote something to counter that assertion? (I doubt it, you’re incapable of doing any work or thinking on your own – you just parrot lines that you think are clever, even though they’re not, that other people have told you to say…. but I digress) No one has ever disputed that Gleick lied about his identity, managed to steal a pile of docs intended for the directors, and then sent them to all of his “friends”.
BUT THERE WAS NOTHING CONTROVERSIAL IN ANY OF THOSE!!!
that’s your 90 pages. Why should they dispute the authenticity of the lunch menu for the (at that time) upcoming conference? Do you even know what is in there?
For people who DO think (excluding you, Phil) this makes clear the reason that Gleick HAD to create the forged document, Here he had gone to all of this trouble to steal a pile of docs, and there was NOTHING THERE! So he sat down and wrote a fevered fake to try and come up with some kind of “narrative” that could be sold to the gullible.
except that all he did was to create a mirror of his own tortured fantasies about those who he believed were his “enemies” and because of that, it stood out immediately. It read like a bad joke penned by an ignoramus, which is why it’s authenticity collapsed in less than a day… About like your posts, Phil.
Phil C says:
May 21, 2012 at 5:40 am
the other pages were and are NON-CONTROVERSIAL the ONLY thing that made any controversy was the paper that Glieck forged.