UK’s Press Complaints Commission responds to the premature ‘Gleick cleared’ Guardian article by Suzanne Goldenberg

Paul Bongiorno submits this story:

Mr. Watts and company,

Good day Sir. I’d received a response from the UK’s Press Complaint’s Commission regarding the UK’s ‘Guardian’ story of, ‘Peter Gleick cleared of forging..’ fiction.
The ‘PCC’s Simon Yip forwarded me the following:

============================================================

The concerns you have raised relate directly to the Pacific Institute Board of Directors. Given the nature of the story, it appears that it would be difficult for the Commission to investigate or understand this matter fully without the involvement of the organisation in question. In addition, the outcome of a Commission investigation (whether correction, apology or adjudication, for example) would need their approval. In such circumstances, we would generally require a complaint from the subject of the article, in order to take the matter forward.

We recognise, however, that the concerns you have raised are significant. Therefore, in the first instance, we will attempt to contact the Pacific Institute Board of Directors to make them aware of our services and the fact that we have been alerted to this coverage as a possible concern. We will endeavour to keep you updated on the outcome, but I should make clear that these approaches frequently take some time to result in a decision whether or not to take forward a complaint, so it may not be possible in this case to revert to you.

You are most welcome to contact us if you would like to follow up on it.

With best wishes
Yours sincerely

Simon Yip
Complaints Coordinator
Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD
Tel: 020 7831 0022
Website: www.pcc.org.uk

=============================================================

The speculation is that Goldenberg got some inside information from somebody privy to the “independent investigation” commissioned by the Pacific Institute and then jumped the gun with it just like she did with the original Fakegate story.

Sounds to me like another bought and paid for bucket of whitewash of the Muir-Russell brand.

About these ads

43 thoughts on “UK’s Press Complaints Commission responds to the premature ‘Gleick cleared’ Guardian article by Suzanne Goldenberg

  1. Heavens forbid the PCC actually forces the Guardian to back its article up with FACTS!

    No…thats far too easy. Instead, lets go the hard route and contact someone we dont actually have to contact in the hope that they dont actually respond to us because it could result in an aweful lot of work for ourselves!

    Mailman

  2. Yep. Adams modeled Vogons on British “civil servants” in Hitchhikers Guide for a reason. They are usually not civil and definitely don’t serve you. By the way, thanks for all the fish.

  3. “….we will attempt to contact the Pacific Institute Board of Directors to make them aware of our services and the fact that we have been alerted to this coverage as a possible concern. We will endeavour to keep you updated on the outcome…”

    Goldenberg and Pacific Institute are on the same team. This will go nowhere.

    The only way the truth will ever get forced out, is through legal action. I’m eagerly awaiting news of a subpoena.

  4. The speculation is that Goldenberg got some inside information
    Speculation? By whom?

    REPLY:
    That’s from my email discussion list. Perhaps you have a better explanation as to why she’s the only writer to cover this story? She’s also the first to “break” the story without confirmation of documents, which blew up in her face. These events strongly suggest she’s got an inside track to Gleick/Pacific Institute.

    I await your regular snark in lieu of substance. – Anthony

  5. Gleick has been accused of pretexting, falsely pretending to be a Heartland insider when distributing the results of his pretexting, and of forging the strategy memo document.

    Since he’s admitted to the first of these, and admitted to the second by implication, I don’t see how any investigation could clear him of wrongdoing, regardless of the investigation’s opinion about the strategy document.

    I’m also curious how any investigation could clear of him forging the strategy document. Gleick claimed to have received it from an anonymous source, Also, as far as I can see, the only way to prove that anonymous isn’t Gleick would be either to identify anonymous — or if a lower standard of proof is required — simply take Gleick’s word for it.

  6. Press Councils (at least in Canada) are financed by the press and are extremely reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them!

    The record shows that the number of complaints they actually tackle are extremely few and they are masters at passing the buck as is clearly illustrated by the current case.

    My experience in trying to get clearly demonstrable factual errors corrected has been extremely frustrating.

  7. “REPLY: That’s from my email discussion list. Perhaps you have a better explanation as to why she’s the only writer to cover this story?”

    Well, she could be as dumb as a bag of rocks. That might explain it…

  8. I don’t see the Pacific Institute investigation mattering that much. The Heartland Institute’s failure to take any action against Gleick “clears” him far more convincingly than any investigation by the PI.

  9. James wrote: “I don’t see the Pacific Institute investigation mattering that much. The Heartland Institute’s failure to take any action against Gleick “clears” him far more convincingly than any investigation by the PI.”

    Agree with . Not understanding why HI has not taken action. If they don’t, I have to assume there’s more to this than meets the eye.

  10. Even if action is taken (which I seriously doubt) the result will be a small 8pt type retraction in the middle of the classifieds two years from now.

    The damage is done and unless there is front page news refuting the story “They” won, Gleick has now been “Cleared” of ALL wrong doing. /snarl

  11. Brent Hargreaves says:
    May 31, 2012 at 10:55 am

    PCC? Is that part of the UK’s Independent Police Complaints Commission?

    Brent,

    The PCC is the Press Complaints Commission, so nothing to do with the IPCC for the police. The names are chosen to spread confusion. Although they had to rename the Federation of British Industry the Confederation of British Industry as FBI was just too confusing.

  12. The concerns you have raised relate directly to the Pacific Institute Board of Directors. Given the nature of the story, it appears that it would be difficult for the Commission to investigate or understand this matter fully without the involvement of the organisation in question. In addition, the outcome of a Commission investigation (whether correction, apology or adjudication, for example) would need their approval. In such circumstances, we would generally require a complaint from the subject of the article, in order to take the matter forward.

    The Guardian runs a piece, Osama bin Laden Cleared of Wrongdoing by an unnamed inquiry. Upon complaints, it would be determined those concerns relate directly to Al Qaeda. The Commission would find it difficult to investigate or understand the matter fully without the involvement of Al Qaeda. Whatever outcome there would be of a Commission investigation would need the approval of Al Qaeda. Under those circumstances, it would take a complaint from bin Laden (in this case his estate) to proceed.

    Yup, a self-confessed criminal who has publicly justified their actions would have to complain about being called not guilty for the Commission to move forward.

    Welcome to the UK, where “guardians of the public interest” try to be so inoffensive they’d let terrorists win.

  13. pokerguy and James:

    I don’t suppose it may have occured to you that the problem is not a lack of effort on HI’s part. Let’s just say that there are other parties that are curiously unwilling to pursue the matter.

  14. Robert E Phelan writes “pokerguy and James:

    I don’t suppose it may have occured to you that the problem is not a lack of effort on HI’s part. Let’s just say that there are other parties that are curiously unwilling to pursue the matter.”

    No it hasn’t occurred to me. How would it? Why not drop the
    “I know something you guys don’t but I can’t tell you what it is” act, and give us some insight into what’s gong on….

  15. I await your regular snark in lieu of substance.

    I was hoping for some substance from you, rather than speculation, which appears to be all you have to offer here.

    REPLY: But the speculation is rooted in discussion by my peers, and by two documented events. That is far more than you have, and you’ve ducked the question. Your track record here is nothing but snark and hate, so I’ll relegate your opinion on this to the bit bucket from now on unless you have something better to offer than continued snark and hate. – Anthony

  16. The PCC is run by press editors. Forget anything resembling an impartial investigation. It ain’t gonna happen.

  17. “The PCC is run by press editors. Forget anything resembling an impartial investigation. It ain’t gonna happen.”

    I think most of us agree with this. And yet I’m looking forward to how they’re going to “clear” him from acts to which he’s already admitted. Unless this is strictly about the forged document.

  18. pokerguy says: May 31, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    Sorry, I didn’t mean to come across all superior and mysterious. I did have a conversation with a real Heartland Insider about this in Chicago during the conference who indicated that HI was in fact actively pursuing the case but that there were obstacles to action being taken. HI hasn’t publicized these obstacles and I don’t feel it is my prerogative to do so. I came away satisfied that the apparent lack of action is not because of any hesitation or lack of effort on Heartland’s part. It was, however, just a conversation and I would be unable to back up any of the details in any case.

  19. “The PCC is run by press editors. Forget anything resembling an impartial investigation. It ain’t gonna happen.”

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100083071/uea-the-sweet-smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning/

    The Commission was satisfied that readers would be aware of the context of the columnist’s robust views – clearly recognisable as his subjective opinion – that the scientists were
    “untrustworthy, unreliable and entirely unfit to write the kind of reports on which governments around the world make their economic and environmental decisions”, and that their work was “shoddy” and “mendacious”. In the circumstances, it did not consider that there had been a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code.

  20. There was a statement from Heartland a week ago that they are still trying to get the justice department to act. Bringing a private case against Gleick before that decision is taken would lower the chances of DOJ action.

  21. See the Heartland conference streams. Joe Bart explained clearly why no action had yet appeared in the public domain.

  22. [SNIP: Your comment will be posted when you supply something other than a throw-away e-mail address and use something other than an anonymous proxy server. -REP]

  23. [snip - this is the bit bucket - I'm still waiting for you to provide a better idea per the first question, and I'm not interested in providing you private name information when you yourself don't use your full name here - be as upset as you wish - Anthony]

  24. I found this long, and very articulate presentation on the Gleick scandal. I, for one, find it impossible to watch this without being absolutely convinced that Gleick, or an accomplice of Gleick, wrote the forged document.

    Unfortunately, there is no hard evidence. Nor, I suspect, will there ever be any hard evidence until subpeonas are handed out. Until such legal action is taken, unscrupulous hacks such as Suzanne Goldenberg will be able to continue spewing out propaganda saying “Gleick Cleared”, “Heartland Exposed” etc, etc, and continue getting away with it.

  25. Stephen Richards says:
    May 31, 2012 at 1:29 pm
    See the Heartland conference streams. Joe Bart explained clearly why no action had yet appeared in the public domain.
    ==============================================

    … and those reasons would be?

  26. This is both tragic & comical.
    Tragic that the UK bureaucratic class is so well-schooled in Orwellian phraseology that they fail to recognize their own irony; comical in that the concerns expressed here are not directed at Gleick but at the Guardian (& its journalist Goldenberg). Full stop. No need to mention the PI, Gleick, or even Heartland.

    One simple phone call: Susan, where’s the beef?

    Kurt in Switzerland

  27. “,,,Pacific Institute Board of Directors. Given the nature of the story, it appears that it would be difficult for the Commission to investigate or understand this matter fully without the involvement of the organisation in question. In addition, the outcome of a Commission investigation (whether correction, apology or adjudication, for example) would need their approval.”
    wtf is simon yip talking about?
    i thought the complaint was about goldenberg.
    one or more of us is just freakin dense, obviously

  28. Re the comment that in the UK the Federation of British Industry (FBI) changed its name to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) to avoid confusion. The Chemical Industries Association (CIA) didn’t change its name. In those far away days you could impress your friends by telling them that you had a morning meeting with the FBI followed by lunch and then spent the afternoon with the CIA..

  29. Well if Peter Gleick’s Pacific Institute clears him of wrongdoing, then that’s Peter Gleick’s institute clearing Peter Gleick. Greg Laden had a post up explaining how exactly this is very significant. Took him several screen pages…

  30. copner says:
    May 31, 2012 at 11:27 am

    Since he’s admitted to the first of these, and admitted to the second by implication, I don’t see how any investigation could clear him of wrongdoing, regardless of the investigation’s opinion about the strategy document.

    I’m sure you and many others are familiar with the Penn State “Inquiry” that “exonerated” Michael Mann, but it’s worthwhile bringing this out into the light of day occasionally. Those familiar with the “investigation” will recall that Allegation 2 was stated thusly:

    “Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?”

    (emphasis added)

    Despite 1)clear evidence from ClimateGate that Mann agreed to forward a request to Gene Wahl to delete e-mails releated to an FOIA request; 2) Mann himself in a newspaper interview stated that he knew such a request was wrong and he regretted that “he did not instantly object when a fellow climatologist asked him in 2008 to delete e-mails subject to Freedom of Information requests”; and 3) the Penn State panel purportedly had in its possession all of Michael Mann’s e-mails, which presumably had the the request he forwarded to Wahl,

    the panel still concluded

    The Inquiry Committee determined there was no substance to this allegation and further investigation of this allegation was not warranted.

    I can believe a certain kind of investigation could “clear” Gleick of wrongdoing.

  31. 69% of the American public believes that it is somewhat likely, or very likely that ‘global warming’ scientists probably falsified their research.

    [snip - we don't know for certain, that's a risky statement - Anthony]

  32. Well, what’s sauce for the goose.
    Publish (in the UK of course) an article that reports hearing that the Pacific Institute has concluded that Gleick forged the Heartland document.

  33. Someone forgot to put 1. Do not use until give permission on the e-mail sent to her, or is Phil C saying she made it up? The trolls always confuse me like LazyTeenager.

  34. Robert E. Phelan says:
    May 31, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    pokerguy and James:

    I don’t suppose it may have occured to you that the problem is not a lack of effort on HI’s part. Let’s just say that there are other parties that are curiously unwilling to pursue the matter.
    ________________________________
    That does not surprise me in the least. If the District Attorney decides Not to pursue a case you are out of luck no matter how rock solid your evidence is. (BTDT)

    I do not think people realize just how much a District Attorney plays gate keeper to justice. The fact that a law is on the books, a crime has been committed, and there is plenty of evidence that suspect Y committed the crime does not mean there will be a trial because the District Attorney’s Office is the one who makes the judgment call as to whether there is “enough evidence” to bring a case to trial and whether it is worth their time to bring the case to trial.

    In my case it was explained that although we had plenty of evidence to convict the thrice convicted ex-con, he refused to plea bargain. Since there was a maximum sentence of 2 months probation the court saw no reason to pursue the matter any further, after all my vehicle had been returned …. (It was grand theft auto and the guy was caught with the vehicle)

    With traffic tickets there is a fine that accrues to the state so THOSE “crimes” make it to court without any problem (and clog up the docket) while other crimes, such as theft or assault and battery that have no fines attached just get swept out the door. /snarl

    Just spend a couple days down at your county cort hous and see how many cases get dismissed at the preliminary court hearing

    The preliminary hearing is not a trial. It is a hearing in court at which witnesses testify and the judge decides if there is enough evidence to require the defendant to stand trial. The jury is not present; the judge alone makes the decision.

    http://www.experts123.com/q/what-is-a-preliminary-hearing.html

    In some cases, such as ours, it does not even get put on the docket for a preliminary hearing!

  35. @Gail Combs says: June 1, 2012 at 1:13 am

    After watching far to much Law & Order (Ice-T is the boy) your legal system scares the hell out of me, I’m sure someone quoted 98% plea bargainning because you can spend 7-8 years awaiting trial.

  36. REPLY: That’s from my email discussion list. Perhaps you have a better explanation as to why she’s the only writer to cover this story? – Anthony

    - – - – - 

    REPLY: But the speculation is rooted in discussion by my peers, and by two documented events.  [ . . . ] - Anthony

    = = = = = =

    Anthony,

    What is the ‘email discussion list’ of your peers?

    John

  37. Shevva says:
    June 1, 2012 at 3:38 am

    @Gail Combs says: June 1, 2012 at 1:13 am

    After watching far to much Law & Order (Ice-T is the boy) your legal system scares the hell out of me, I’m sure someone quoted 98% plea bargainning because you can spend 7-8 years awaiting trial.
    ________________________–
    After having the stardust knocked off I agree it scares the hell out of me too.

    The USA is no longer a nation ruled by law, it is a nation ruled by men (the District Attorneys) If you are a bank or large corporation you get justice. If your are the little guy you get stomped on. I know of seven families that ticked off someone, a local drug dealer, and found themselves fighting off “Child Protective Services” who were fed false information. Two guys went to jail, two families lost their kids, two families fled the state and only one family was able to fight because the child involved was old enough to refute the lie. Since I do not have kids, my horses were abused and two killed.

    Try reading http://fear.org/

    …The perversion of law enforcement priorities was also the subject of an empirical study….
    When asked why a search warrant would not be served on a suspect known to have resale quantities of contraband, one officer responded:
    “Because that would just give us a bunch of dope and the hassle of having to book him (the suspect). We’ve got all the dope we need in the property room, just stick to rounding up cases with big money and stay away from warrants.”

    ….Thirteen additional years of policing for profit have now entrenched agencies in a dependency on forfeiture revenue that continues to subordinate the pursuit ot justice to the pursuit of profit.

    “A conflict of interest between effective crime control and creative fiscal management will persist so long as law enforcement agencies remain dependent on civil asset forfeiture.”
    —John L. Worrall, Department of Criminal Justice, California State University, San Bernardino, Addicted to the drug war: The role of civil asset forfeiture as a budgetary necessity in contemporary law enforcement, Journal of Criminal Justice Volume 29, Issue 3, May-June 2001, Pages 171-187.

    To say the US legal system is messed up is an understatement. We now have a system of “policing for profit ” instead of the Rule of Law.

Comments are closed.