Here’s a recent story from the Associated Press:
By Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter and Malcolm Ritter, Dec 12, 2009
“E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.”
Look in the mirror, fools. It’s right there in the CRU emails:
On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Borenstein, Seth wrote:
Kevin, Gavin, Mike,
It’s Seth again. Attached is a paper in JGR today that
Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
Seth
Seth Borenstein
Associated Press Science Writer
[7]sborenstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
The Associated Press, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC
20005-4076
202-641-9454
Now, I’m going to bring to your attention, this entry from THE ASSOCIATED PRESS STATEMENT OF NEWS VALUES AND PRINCIPLES
For more than a century and a half, men and women of The Associated Press have had the privilege of bringing truth to the world. They have gone to great lengths, overcome great obstacles – and, too often, made great and horrific sacrifices – to ensure that the news was reported quickly, accurately and honestly. Our efforts have been rewarded with trust: More people in more places get their news from the AP than from any other source.In the 21st century, that news is transmitted in more ways than ever before – in print, on the air and on the Web, with words, images, graphics, sounds and video. But always and in all media, we insist on the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior when we gather and deliver the news.
That means we abhor inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions. It means we will not knowingly introduce false information into material intended for publication or broadcast; nor will we alter photo or image content. Quotations must be accurate, and precise.
It means we always strive to identify all the sources of our information, shielding them with anonymity only when they insist upon it and when they provide vital information – not opinion or speculation; when there is no other way to obtain that information; and when we know the source is knowledgeable and reliable.
It means we don’t plagiarize.
It means we avoid behavior or activities that create a conflict of interest and compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action.
It means we don’t misidentify or misrepresent ourselves to get a story. When we seek an interview, we identify ourselves as AP journalists.
It means we don’t pay newsmakers for interviews, to take their photographs or to film or record them.
It means we must be fair. Whenever we portray someone in a negative light, we must make a real effort to obtain a response from that person. When mistakes are made, they must be corrected – fully, quickly and ungrudgingly.
And ultimately, it means it is the responsibility of every one of us to ensure that these standards are upheld. Any time a question is raised about any aspect of our work, it should be taken seriously.
“I have no thought of saying The Associated Press is perfect. The frailties of human nature attach to it,” wrote Melville Stone, the great general manager of the AP. But he went on to say that “the thing it is striving for is a truthful, unbiased report of the world’s happenings … ethical in the highest degree.”
He wrote those words in 1914. They are true today.
…
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The AP respects and encourages the rights of its employees to participate actively in civic, charitable, religious, public, social or residential organizations.
However, AP employees must avoid behavior or activities – political, social or financial – that create a conflict of interest or compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action. Nothing in this policy is intended to abridge any rights provided by the National Labor Relations Act.
Here is a sampler of AP practices on questions involving possible conflict of interest. It is not all-inclusive; if you are unsure whether an activity may constitute a conflict or the appearance of a conflict, consult your manager at the onset.
EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION:
Anyone who works for the AP must be mindful that opinions they express may damage the AP’s reputation as an unbiased source of news. They must refrain from declaring their views on contentious public issues in any public forum, whether in Web logs, chat rooms, letters to the editor, petitions, bumper stickers or lapel buttons, and must not take part in demonstrations in support of causes or movements.
When a reporter get’s too cozy with sources, calling them by their first names, with no hint of professional formality, it raises questions of integrity.
When a reporter is part of an email thread where one of the respondents says:
On Jul 23, 2009, at 9:05 PM, Jim Salinger wrote:
Hi All
Thanks for the pro-activeness. Is there an opportunity to write a
letter to JGR pointing out the junk science in this??….if
it is not rebutted, then all sceptics will use this to justify their
position.
Jim
It gives the appearance that he is not interested in reporting the other side of the story, especially when he is the instigator of the email thread by saying:
Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?
So, how then would the AP trust Seth Borenstein to do an “exhaustive inquiry” when he is part of the issue?
Perhaps further FOIA documents will tell us just how cozy Mr. Borenstein is with the people he reports on.
Now consider what other members of the media people write about him. From the Tacoma News-Tribune
Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein has a terrible reputation as a runaway alarmist. Even global warming enthusiasts and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are embarrassed by his over-the-top prognostications of doom and selective use of data to support his fading dream that mankind can actually control climate.
When other reporters people can see the bias, AP, you have a problem.
A few days later, spurred on by Borenstein’s initial letter, we see this one:
From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming – paper in JGR
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:23:09 -0600
Cc: Grant Foster <tamino_9@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, “J. Salinger” <j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Annan <jdannan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Hi all
Wow this is a nice analysis by Grant et al. What we should do is turn this into a learning
experience for everyone: there is often misuse of filtering. Obviously the editor and
reviewers need to to also be taken to task here. I agree with Mike Mann that a couple of
other key points deserve to be made wrt this paper. Making sure that the important
relationships and role of ENSO on interannual variability of global temperatures should
also be pointed out with some select references (as in recent emails and the refs
therein). In terms of the paper, I recommend consolidating the figures to keep them fewer
in number if this is a comment: combine Figs 3 with 4 , and 6 with 7. Make sure the plots
of spectra have period prominently displayed as well as frequency and maybe even highlight
with stipple some bands like >10 years. Glad to sign on: I would need an acknowledgment
that NCAR is sponsored by NSF.
Regards
Kevin
More instances of scientists acting like bullies to pressure editors and reviewers to accept the view they hold dear. Notice blogger “Tamino” aka Grant Foster is part of the gang.
Does Seth Borenstein ever report anything about undue pressure on journals exercised by his circle of climate coziness? No.
But to have Mr. Borenstein report upon the investigation of the leaked East Anglia emails, when he himself is part of the emails, is certainly a conflict of interest.
In that story today about the investigation, written in part by Borenstein it says:
The archive also includes a request from an AP reporter, one of the writers of this story, for reaction to a study, a standard step for journalists seeking quotes for their stories.
When the AP allows reporters to report on stories they are involved in, and for them to be able to dance around their own involvement in the same story, it clearly becomes a conflict of interest.
It is, in my opinion, time for AP to remove Seth Borenstein as “science reporter”. I believe he can no longer be trusted to report climate science without bias, due to this clear conflict of interest.
The Associated Press
Headquarters
450 W. 33rd St.
New York, NY 10001
Main Number
+1-212-621-1500
Paul Colford
Director of Media Relations
Jack Stokes
Manager of Media Relations
NOTE: I misidentified the article in Tacoma News Tribune as being from the reporter, when it was a letter reaction. In the right side is a “Share this story” bar, which aided in my misidentification. I regret the error. Thankfully, our large group of reviewers here caught this error on my part and it is corrected in the story above. – Anthony
Sponsored IT training links:
Download 642-456 questions and answers with self paced 642-873 practice test to successfully complete JK0-016 certification.
Others have noticed.
http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2009/12/ap-verdict-climategate-sham-experts-biased-ties-to-climate-change-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-14390
Very Good! I was in the process or commenting on http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/50707/title/Climate-gate_Beyond_the_embarrassment and included a note about that. When I went looking for something else involving JGR, my WUWT search brought this up! So I added this link there.
Minor nit: In the headline, something is spelled “somethig”.
Would not be surprised if Google is delaying or simply not showing up any news stories anti-AGW re recent daily mail on CA not on google news for example change to bing or other?
Wow! The snowball keep running…
The story that AP SHOULD have written…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html
The bias is so blatant, it’s breathtaking.
AP is no longer a news outlet, it’s become a propaganda mouth piece for Ecofascism… Pravda for all things AGW.
AP = Busted!!!
I left a comment at CA that’s even more fitting for this piece:
Seth Borenstein is entitled to his opinions. If he has a burning belief that mankind is responsible for warming the planet, that’s fine. Just don’t foist that belief on an unsuspecting public while posturing as a journalist. Change your position from that of science writer to that of opinion columnist.
Now all we need is for a real journalist to emerge and ask the question, “Who adjusted the raw temperature data?”
Well done! Hit them hard where it hurts the most, their professional integrity in the eyes of their readers.
Just fired off an email. Thanks for posting the addy and individuals to send it to Anthony.
“To Paul Colford, Director of Media Relations and Jack Stokes, Manager of Media Relation,
As someone who worked in media for the majority of my career, I am deeply disappointed in the lack of professional integrity exercised in reporting AP’s “Exhaustive review” of the East Angila CRU emails by Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter and Malcolm Ritter.
I have followed this story closely since it broke almost 4 weeks ago. I have read many of the emails and noticed Mr. Borenstien has communicated with Kevin Trenbeth, Gavin Schmidt, and Michael Mann on what seems to be a very informal basis (reference to first names in the email dated July 23rd, 2009).
Is it not a conflict of interest to have Mr. Borenstein “report” and comment on the findings of AP’s “Exhaustive Review” of said emails when it is indicative that he has close ties with the individuals in question? After reviewing AP’s Statement of News Values and Principals, it is clear that this report has deviated from your posted mandate and policy, which calls into question the the journalistic integrity of your organization.
Regards,
Manfred Kintop”
“Marc Morano is hyping wildly. It’s in a legit journal. Whatchya think?”
I think I wanna puke!!
Thank you for getting this out. I saw a Seth Borenstein AP story this morning I knew it was blatant propaganda. Great job for getting on top of this. There’s so much disinformation out there. The alarmists are in a nutty rage pointing to how their faith in global doom is totally justified because Factcheck.org or AP or some other trashy piece of propaganda says so. I even saw some GW alarmist radio show host loon on TV today say, “All the scientists in the world know climate change is man made, except for, like, ten deniers.”
Arrrrrggghhh!
How do people remain this ignorant? Propaganda from little pukes like Seth Borenstein, for one. What a slimy tool this guy is. Journalism is so tainted in my eyes these days. They’re little foot soldiers of disinformation, these writers. Yick! Orwell couldn’t have written creepier characters than these scum.
Yesterday, I saw Factcheck.org’s “fact” check of climategate and, basically, they said: There’s no problem with CRU emails. It was just misunderstanding…
Argghhhh!!
Then I looked at their source list. My Gawd, they are idiotic enough to include sources like a CRU press release, IPCC, East Anglia, etc. I wrote to FC.org’s editor in a rage and asked “Are you serious!?”
And some numbskull reviewed the FC post (in Stumbleupon.org) as “thumbs up”: Good unbiased assessment of climate scandal.
By the way, a week or so after the climategate scandal had already broke, I read a GW alarmist story so hysterical and creepy I bookmarked it for a laugh. Of course, there’s no balanced mention at all of the email scandal raging on.
Oh, who wrote it?
That little slimy bastard who has taken journalism and made it something no more respectable than the feces of worms who live in sewage. In my eyes, mainstream media journalism’s dead. Thanks to putrid little creatures like Seth Borenstein.
Anyway, I wrote a post about how sources like Factcheck, MSNBC are doing blatant propganda here, if you’re interested:
http://aprilbaby.typepad.com/a_california_life/2009/12/propaganda-101-climate-science-scandal.html
PS Any male who types “Watcha think”, sounds like a thirteen year old cheerleader. I think he needs to spend some time doing hard core manual labor to get the peppy teen girl living inside him to man up.
Sorry, I’ve just had it with the demise of truth anywhere.
Signed,
Sickened by Seth
how did borenstein come to the conclusion, that “science was not faked” ?
is it no fake to insert secretly real temperatures into a tree ring reconstruction ?
does he really believe, the authors just forgot to report the manipulation in their various papers ?
does he really believe, that tree rings are good measures of temperature for over 1000 years, and then suddenly in 1960 stopped to be ?
how does he know, science was not faked, if papers were waved through by buddy peer review and other were not allowed to be published and others peer reviewed were excluded from IPCC reports and multiple reviewer requests of IPCC reports were just turned by biased networkers ?
how does borenstein come to his opinion, when the inline comments in various source code tell exactly the opposite ?
In a sane world, another media outlet would be all over this.
If they were actually interested in the truth. Or even competing instead of colluding.
And Mary, that has to be the misleading headline of the month. Well, maybe week.
Journalism today = corporate and government mouthpieces
The archive also includes a request from an AP reporter, one of the writers of this story, for reaction to a study, a standard step for journalists seeking quotes for their stories.
In the referenced e-mail, it was fairly obvious Borenstein wasn’t looking for a reaction for quotes, he was asking which direction the Crew wanted it spun.
Exhaustive????
Yeah, well, I just read that and I’m EXHAUSTED
Well, I’ll tell you Mary
I’d much rather be
(fill in your own last line)
Rob (23:33:25) :
I am keeping half an eye on Google and their reported hits for “Climategate.” Bing’s hits peaked at 50 million plus and have stayed there. Oddly on Google they peaked just over 30 million, and now the “decline” has supposedly set in. That and the fact that Google has reportedly been lowering page ranks for sites containing the word “climatgate.”
Climategate hits on Google now down to 26.7 million. 1.5 million hits disappeared since yesterday.
Google is rapidly losing all credibility in my eyes.
The part about Tamino was particularly interesting.
is the BBC involved too? I assume this is the same Roger Harrabin, BBC Environmental Analyst in this email from Jean-Charles Hourcade in 2001
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=240&filename=994859893.txt
Big brother is watching
George Orwell Lives!!
Even his name was an alias for George Arthur Blair !!
google is avoiding this one
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens–Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html. We shall remember this when this thing is all over (that is 50% of the world according to surveys). Google you should not be taking sides on this!
Here is another example of Mann et al bullying of other scientists, in order to discredit the 2003 Soon / Baliunas paper on the frequency of the appearance of the MWP in published literature. Borenstein missed that one too.
Google still seems unable to suggest the word “climategate” as a search item.
If led up to the brink, by typing in “climatega” the first suggestion is “climateguard” and if further guided to “climategat” the suggestion is “climate guatemala”.
No input that I’ve found gets Google to suggest “climategate” or “climate-gate”.
It seems the word has been banned from the Google lexicon.
Not sure if this kind of censorship by omission is a big deal, but it does seem that Google is interpreting their “Do no evil” principle somewhat loosely.