The shonky world of Guardian reporting – they Fakegate themselves

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

http://cifwatch.com/2012/04/16/suzanne-goldenberg-avoids-mentioning-her-jenin-lies-at-the-guardian-open-weekend/

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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

I would note, the Guardian has never backed away from the ambulance story…….. as impossible as it is.

philjourdan

And yet she is still employed. At least the WaPo canned Cooke.

philjourdan

Janet Cooke – Jimmy’s World. Sorry for the shorthand.

LeeHarvey

Aaronson, Jones, and Rutherford weren’t in New York, either.

Man Bearpig

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 ?

Alan the Brit

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!

j ferguson

Fak(?)gate?

Gary

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Antonius Wattsus.
Goldenberg and the Guardian are moving into vacuum left by the News of the World disappearance, it seems.

Jack

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.

Peter Miller

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.

Phil C

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.

Truthseeker

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”.

robmcn

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.

beesaman

Goldenberg, just another hater trying to close down free speech…

Midwest Mark

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.

beesaman

How can Gleick ever be cleared of being a liar, a thief and a con artist?
He admitted to it all!

Steve (Paris)

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?

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.

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.

artwest

Phil C says:
“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.”
———————————————————————–
Silent apart from a substantial part of their website?
e.g.:
http://fakegate.org/background-on-fakegate/
They have clearly said on numerous occasions that there was only one faked document. What else do you want?

MarkW

Fired missiles at … caused huge explosions. Everyone inside was injured.
Nobody killed? And people took that story seriously in the first place?

Ric Werme says:
DJ says:
You guys see this???
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/20/heartland-institute-future-staff-cash

From the new Goldenberg article:

Heartland’s claims to “stay above the fray” of the climate wars was exploded by … a document sting last February that revealed a plan to spread doubt among kindergarteners on the existence of climate change.

The other pages are non-controversial, but they have allowed Greenpeace and others to harass Heartland’s donors, consultants, and staff, and do a lot of damage using this information.
Which only further underlines the stupidity of forging the controversial document. Gleick could have hurt Heartland without forging that one – and he would never have been found out (remember he was found out because the controversial document named him as a Heartland enemy – the only document that did so – and certain stylistic oddities).
Of course, without the forgery, Gleick would have got no credit and kudos from the “leak” (either in a positive way as a respected climate scientist as mentioned in the forged memo, or as a document stealer).

Alan the Brit says:
May 21, 2012 at 5:32 am
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!
=================================================
Lol, we know that Alan…..we’ve our share of useless and biased loons on this side of the pond as well. Hopefully we aren’t judged by them, either.

MarkW

I could have sworn that Heartland has confirmed that everything except the so called policy document was real. The problem for you Phil, was there was nothing in those 90 pages worth talking about. Which is why the faked policy document was needed in the first place.
Why do you think Heartland is going after Gleick for phone fraud and other things?

Affizzyfist

OT again but looks like Global temps May UHA anomaly close to 0C currently comparing with 2010 about 0.5C lower… . would guess about +0.15C for May. So no warming AGAIN poor ol warmistas, and this is with neutral Nina, Nino, etc… LOL

SPreserv
Ian E

Alan the Brit : ‘“Stop the World, I want to et off!”’
Is that get off, jet off, or E.T. off?

katabasis1

The Guardian regularly appears to receive special treatment that other media outlets don’t get.
I don’t know if anyone else outside Old Blighty here is following the “phone hacking” investigations, however you might like to know that one of the Guardian’s star journalists, David Leigh, admitted to using phone hacking himself. Is he being charged? No. Why not is anyone’s guess….
I should also note that: i) Leigh used the “Public interest” defence (so that’s OK then?) and ii) that Leigh is the brother in Law of Rusbridger, the Guardian’s chief editor.

Olen

Liberals are good at the nonexistent until caught.

Alan the Brit says:
May 21, 2012 at 5:32 am [………
The Guardian may have posted the story – but sadly, Ms Suzanne Goldenberg is the US Environmental reporter…stationed in DC.

Andrew Greenfield

With the way temperatures are going when will the modelers give up? ie Lucia still tries to fit that line in but it just ain’t fitting anymore, its totally insignificant especially now. Same with ice as both ice and temps return to the norm I find it fascinating how NSIDC and RSS manage to fit those lines through the data to always keep on showing warming

richardscourtney

Peter Miller:
At May 21, 2012 at 5:38 am you say;
“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.”
Well, I know of one other. My son reads the Guardian on-line so he can and does – when censorship permits – refute its most egregious assertions. And he often posts a ‘heads up’ of the worst excesses here on WUWT.
I wonder how many others also read the Guardian to know the latest assertions of eco-loons. The Guardian really is a good insight into the next phoney, green assertion that is to fly around the internet.
Richard

Jonas N

Suzanne Goldenberg, and other churnos like her who think they’re saving the world from evil, are the reason why activists (of so many kinds) work hard to stage ‘news events’ to be fed to them:
Because it works! Because the gullible wil lgive it wider coverage. Because faking it and getting the media to side with them is their best strategy when reality and hard facts are not supportive ..
Here i Goldenberg with another skilfully faked story, echoed and condemned all over the world

Otter

philc, interesting how accurately your name rhymes with filthy…

M Courtney

Ok. The real story here isn’t that an unsourced and unbelievable news story was pulled from the Grauniad website.
The real story here is that an unsourced and unbelievable news story was put on the Grauniad website.
Remember 15 people were in on the “sting” and got the scoop of the documents. Some are belived to be journalists. Those journalists are in a very weak position. Especially if the Heartland Conference are suspected of being about to announce that they are going to sue Glieck. And the only time slightly independent press listens to HI is at their conference.
If Ms Suzanne Goldenberg was trying to cover her tracks she has failed. But if the shadowy 15 were all conspiring to cover their tracks she would be working on this story. (I use “story” ironically in a journalistic sense.)
So why was it leaked early?
Perhaps she is hamfisted on the keyboard.
Or perhaps the Grauniad isn’t a one person band nor as monolithic in its thinking as some suspect.

John Campbell

The link you gave – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/20/peter-gleick-cleared-heartland – gives me this message: “Sorry – we haven’t been able to serve the page you asked for”. ???

Harry Won A Bagel

The extraordinary ignorance of many journalists amazes. It is sometimes so profound you suspect it is deliberate. My 11 year old son could tell you that if an ambulance was hit by a first world military missile occupants of said ambulance are unlikely to have been injured. Unless your definition of injured includes complete dissembly, of ambulance and occupants.

cui bono

UK journalism has had a few problems lately (note the British understatement 🙂 .
One of the lesser-known ones was a guy called Johann Hari who worked for the Independent (another fanatical pro-AGW paper). He was found to have lied in his stories, plagiarised his copy, and malevolently altered the Wikipedia entries of anyone who crossed him.
Was he fired? No. His editor sent him back to journalism school!
At the recent Leveson enquiry into journalistic ethics, his editor was asked about Mr. Hari. He said “Johann genuinely believed he was doing nothing wrong. The fact that nobody complained, Johann did not believe he was doing anything wrong.”
Keep complaining, Anthony and everyone!

Kelvin Vaughan
theduke

She’s a Greenpeace plant and a purveyor of their propaganda at the Guardian. Reality-free reporting. A new trend in left-wing journalism.

BarryW

Why keep misidentifying her as a reporter? She’s just a fabulist.

clt510

An incomplete list of whooper tellers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair
NYT “reporter”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill
fake history, fake paintings.
And don’t forget the ethicist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gleick
fake memo, fake ethics.

007

She says ‘Directors quit’. I’d like for her to name which ones quit.
(I believe only one has)