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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We’ll ask the fox if there are in fact any missing chickens and get back to you.
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
Just like the Climategate cover up. Same MO.
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.
PCC? Is that part of the UK’s Independent Police Complaints Commission?
“….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.
Um surely it’s Heartland they should contact as the injured party? Can’t imagine PI wanting to lodge a complaint.
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
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.
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.
“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…
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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….
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
The PCC is run by press editors. Forget anything resembling an impartial investigation. It ain’t gonna happen.
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
See the Heartland conference streams. Joe Bart explained clearly why no action had yet appeared in the public domain.