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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Times have about as much shame and integrity as Pravda did during the Cold War. Pure propoganda. The Editorial page is 100% liberal. There is not a thing under the Sun the Democratic Party can do wrong in their eyes.
Revkin is a reporter for the NY Times?
I thought Dot Earth was editorial/opinion now.
It’s enormously creditable that Peter Gleick lied, cheated, and stole.
So goes the meme of climate science. It is creditable to lie, cheat, and steal.
And people are supposed to trust climate scientists?
Good to see Koch fighting back.
It’s fun to see how some people react to the simple mention of word like “FOX NEWS”, KOCH”, “BUSH” etc
Brilliant! I am soooo looking forward to the NYT reply. They’ve simply got to straighten their act, as does all MSM. A brilliant letter.
This goes to prove that the “mainstream media” has an agenda which is not truthful or accurate reporting. They are solely dedicated to pushing a misleading and untruthful version of reality. To mislead the public and condition them into supporting a false agenda requiring endless tax increases and ever tighter controls over what we can and cannot do.
“Dr. Mark Stemen… labeled me as a “Koch-whore” (I have screencaps which I’ll share later) without so much as asking me a question first.”
I know this stuff does hurt, even with a thick battle-tested skin. And it is beyond outrageous that these people operate from government funded positions ( and even worse, that they have infiltrated so many of them).
But… it is a wonderful thing to see them hang themselves like this. Like Gleick, when they get mad they reveal the nasty ideologues hiding under their ‘scientist’ costume and this is the kind of corrosion that will ultimately end their reign. I hope.
So let’s hope that this exposure provokes an even more hysterical outburst.
There is a “sauve qui peut” feel (phrase used when loss of a war is imminent – usually broadcast to the front and it basically means – save what you can or every man for himself (apologies to woman for this acronysm))during these desperate days for the AGW crowd. The “C”AGW has been dropped and finally the A, G and W – opting for rogue climate terms. CO2 isn’t even mentioned anymore for obvious reasons. There is just ranting, lying, cheating – anything to ward off the inevitable. There is hysteria, an ugly impotent aggressiveness, a reckless abandonment of core values, civility and good sense. These guys – the activist scientists, politicians and journalists- are clearly “all in” both in the sense used in Texas Hold’em and as in mentally and physically exhausted. I sincerely hope madness and suicide aren’t in the offing.
I suspect the NYT still thinks the ‘Hitler diaries’ are genuine.
Duncan above is correct. Here’s the note I sent to the Koch Foundation press person yesterday: https://twitter.com/#!/Revkin/status/174960201928159232
REPLY: Andy, I don’t think the public makes such distinctions nor cares. Are you using your “not a reporter” capacity to excuse not digging deeper into these documents before making authentication statements that set off the hounds? – Anthony
The defining characteristic of the Left, in any of its manifestations, is hate. That hate always expresses itself in rage. Following the old adage that you can judge a man by his enemies, I’d suggest you consider being labeled a “Koch-whore” by such as Stemen to be a high honor.
I have met 2 of the Koch bros on more than 1 occasion. I have met their dad decades ago. I was called regarding a Wall Street Journal article about Koch many years ago. The WSJ did make phone calls. I guess that is old school and now rags just read blogs for stories.
“In Pravda there is no Izvestia. In Izvestia there is no Pravda.”
The NYT rolls them both up in one festering lump.
I agree with Taphonomic. There is a creditable side and a discreditable side to this climate debate now.
There is one side which self-admittedly sinks to engaging in, and acceptance and acts in defence of criminal deception, fraud, theft with malicious intent to cause harm and loss. This side closed down debate, keeps data secret, publishes misleading data, engages in bullying and intimidation and threats against editors and journals and engaged in corrupt, incestuous peer review and rejects reality in favour of the output from computer models. This side is the climate alarmist, warmist side.
There is another side to this climate debate which invites and welcomes open debate from all sides, seeks to have all data open and available to all, seeks to have all science stick rigidly to the full tenets of the scientific method, seeks to have all science validated by empirical evidence. This side is the truly scientific, climate sceptic side.
Hmmmmmmmm, I wonder which side I should trust?
Philip Foster says:
February 29, 2012 at 12:50 pm
I suspect the NYT still thinks the ‘Hitler diaries’ are genuine.
Phil. Don’t be silly, but they still think Stalin was a kind and gentle machine gun man who was misunderstood by his fellow citizens.
What’s wrong with Koch donating money for climate stuff? Don’t they also donate money to Lincoln Center? The symphony and opera are Koch-whores?
Let’s see… Revkin puts something on Twitter and calls it an explanatory note to the Koch’s? Did he call them? Write them? Send an email? If not, I hope they get the best lawyer in New York and give the man his due…
OK. I’ll bite. Exactly what does a degree in “environmental courses in sustainability and civic engagement” qualify one for in life? Other than a protesting gig at the next OWS.
Over in the UK we have George Monbiot describing Gleick as a hero for what he did! I had thought Monbiot deluded, but essentially honourable and honest, up to this point (he has even had the grace occassionally to admit his errors (as with Biofuels and solar power – at least for the UK,), but this Gleick affair and their hatred for Heartland seems to have completely blinded the warmie-lefties to any feeling for integrity, honesty and the nature of real science.
All warmies should clearly be forced to read and study Bertrand Russell’s decalogue for at least an hour every day!
Watching “Nova” on PBS recently, I noticed that it was funded by the Charles Koch foundation.
One minor aside. Maybe someone with a name other than “Stemen” should be the one to mock someone named “Koch.”
Just sayin’
The New York Times is not the only perpetrator of shoddy “journalism.” Last Sunday John Diaz of the San Francisco Chronicle (Truth and Denial) lightly condemned Peter Gleick while trying and convicting The Heartland Institute and man-caused global warming skeptics of crimes against humanity. According to Mr. Diaz: “The scientific consensus that human activity is accelerating global warming is solid; the only real debate is about the magnitude and timing of the consequences. Its effects are already apparent. Melting glaciers and ice caps. Sea-level rise. Severe storms and drought. Devastated crops.”
The fact that global warming is not accelerating, and that numerous reputable and respected scientists deny its consequences did not enter into Mr. Diaz’s labeling of skeptics as “deniers”, furthering the ongoing effort to establish and maintain an odious link with Holocaust deniers. Mr. Diaz obviously is unaware that glaciers have been retreating for over 300 years since the end of the Little Ice Age. In Glacier Bay, Alaska, retreat was over 50 miles from 1780 to 1912,
and only six miles since. Sea level rise has decelerated, according to Europe’s new sophisticated satellite system, and is trending at about six inches per century or less, the same as the two previous centuries. The alarmist forecast for the San Francisco Bay Area of six feet by 2100 would equal the highest rate of increase per century experienced at the end of the Ice Age about 10,000 years ago, when there was vast quantities of ice to melt and global temperature was much higher than today. Concerning severe storms and drought, and devastated crops, even dedicated “warmist” scientists deny linkages, and respected neutral scientists such as the Doctors Piellke, Senior and Junior, dismiss it entirely.
Mr. Diaz also assumes with no evidence that skeptics are well funded, but if he had chosen to read fraudulently acquired Heartland Institute budget, and compared it to warmist organization budgets – Sierra Club, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Federation, etc. – he would be confronted by the facts that the Heartland Institute budget is only a small fraction of the budgets of any one of these organizations, that only a small portion of Heartland’s budget was applied to climate change, and that Big Oil provides far more money to warmists than to skeptics.
Mr. Diaz, I can easily substantiate skeptic science positions by inquiring government, not skeptic sources. Mr. Diaz, it seems you and many other “reporters” have lost your nose for news when it comes to natural climate change.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/25/INLN1MNTGK.DTL&ao=2#ixzz1no3dSt8b
Don E, the Koch brothers must be pressuring the Lincoln Center to play more Beethoven, Strauss, Wagner, and any other “approved” Aryan music!
Once the left has a narrative, they never let facts get in the way.
Anthony – what do you mean with “authentication statements” by Revkin?
Philip Foster says:
February 29, 2012 at 12:50 pm
I suspect the NYT still thinks the ‘Hitler diaries’ are genuine.
The NYT still displays the Pulitzer won by Walter Duranty who reported “In a New York Times article dated 23 August 1933, Duranty wrote, “Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda””
This is the exaggerated famine that did indeed killed millions of Ukranians.
The NYT would never let truth get in the way of a Pulitzer.
Had they any integrity they would at least take down a Pulitzer earned through deception, but the times like most liberal elites tend to ignore the foibles of socialists.