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
Press Complaints Commission
London EC1N 2JD
Tel: 020 7831 0022
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.