In one example cited, the Kochs complained, for instance, about a 2011 piece Sassoon wrote on Reuters site: “Koch Brothers Positioned To Be Big Winners If Keystone XL Pipeline Is Approved.” As the cautiously worded headline implies, the actual piece merely makes the point that the company owns assets that could benefit from the project. It says the company owns a crude oil terminal at the starting point for the proposed pipeline; was already shipping 250,000 barrels of tar sands oil a day to its own refinery in Minnesota; would benefit from an expected oil-price increase that is expected to accompany the pipeline, and so on.
Any of that wrong? Apparently not.
A Kochfacts post attacking the story, “UPDATE Continuing Falsehoods from InsideClimate and its Owner, David Sassoon” includes this exchange with Sassoon.
Sassoon: “We have made no false allegations and remain in the dark about what you think they might be.”
[Kochfacts reply:] That is untrue. We have made it explicitly clear for the better part of a year now to InsideClimate that Koch has no financial interest whatsoever in the Keystone project. Yet, InsideClimate continues to mislead readers that we have some connection to the project and that approval of the project would be a “big victory” for Koch and a “great financial opportunity [for Koch to] profit.”
But the rebuttal to the Kochs’ allegation lies within their own answer. It’s obviously a very different matter to say something would be a “big victory” and a “great financial opportunity” for a company than it is to say that the company has a “financial interest” in something. There is no false allegation at all, so Sassoon’s statement is not “untrue.” No wonder Reuters stood by the story.
It’s not enough to report merely that a big corporate interest is battling the media on its own turf. The real question, who’s winning?
In this article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/25/idUS336798587820110525, SolveClimateNews claimed Koch Industries was concealing its financial interest in Keystone. What the article fails to mention is the number of times Koch had publicly declared that they have no such financial interest. By not sharing that key bit of info SolveClimate was not practicing objective journalism. They were advocating for a political outcome. That's not surprising because SolveClimate News was launched to cover “key climate solutions . . . that will have immediate and measurable impact on the pollution-causing climate change” ( http://www.civicactions.com/blog/civicactions_launches_solveclimate_com ) and David Sassoon is a walking, talking conflict of interests. He's a cimate change advocate. And that's fine. But he's posing as a journalist. And that's wrong. Sassoon's SolveClimateNews has changed its name and scrubbed its website to appear objective but it is anything but. Their coverage of Koch makes that obvious.
PS. Janet Cooke won a Pulitzer too
#1 Posted by Mort Todtman, CJR on Tue 16 Jul 2013 at 09:26 AM
Jane Mayer? Isn't she the journo who came to public attention trashing Clarence Thomas, but was missing in action when Bill Clinton's much more serious sexual harassment vitae came to light?
'Corporate interests'? Isn't the New York Times Corporation a 'corporate interest' that takes on its opponents and rivals for social status and authority over culture and politics? What's the diff? Is CJR flacking for one set of corporate overlords over another, possibly without understanding what it is really doing?
The Koch attacks raise legitimate questions about the blurry line between 'journalism' and 'activism', usually activism associated with the political Left. Would that CJR raised similar questions. Especially at a time when there is a perceptible post-'Citizens United' sensibility on the Left in favor of determining who is and is not a 'journalist' for purposes of deciding at the government level who should have First Amendment rights, and who should not.
#2 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 16 Jul 2013 at 01:04 PM
"He's a cimate change advocate. And that's fine. But he's posing as a journalist. And that's wrong"
Bullshit. As long as journalists report the facts as best they know them, their perspective and advocacy doesn't matter. If they let their advocacy distort the facts, by reporting as real things that are unreal or by dismissing real things as unreal, then they are violating a journalistic code. Having a perspective on the world does not equate to the willful manipulation data to match a perspective. If you're still confused, this may make it more clear. Journalism is the first draft of history, Fox News is a polished work of propaganda.
If you find yourself speaking of fox newsish, unconfirmed email rumors as facts; if you find yourself at more often at odds with the 'leftists' at snopes, you may just be a post-truth advocate.
About which, I have no problem with the advocacy. My problem is with the post-truthiness, that people in supposed authority are saying provably wrong, often willfully wrong, things.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 16 Jul 2013 at 09:26 PM
And they have been paid to do this by people like the Kochs since the days of the Powell Memo.
They are 'rentellectuals' and, as journalists, we have to have done the research, to know what we are talking about, so we have a basis to call them out on their bullshit.
Unfortunately, that kind of behavior will get you labeled an advocate by tea party guys who chase the name Koch in the papers (right Morty?), but the fact is a journalist needs to be an advocate, an advocate for the truth.
Otherwise, she becomes a xerox machine for those who would do evil, like Judith Miller - who won a Pulitzer Prize for repeating conservative lies in "the liberal" New York Times.
Funny you didn't mention her.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 16 Jul 2013 at 09:38 PM
Unlike publications disagreeing, where a little controversy can drive circulation and/or viewership, Koch is looking for behavior modification in the Editorial Board Room. Not only do they want to control Message and Tone, they want it cleared through back channels with prior notification.
Should Jeb Bush run in 2016, the 1st article mentioning a Koch Family connection is going to go to print/air/online to a Tsunami of complaints. Lead exploitation will be strongly discouraged by exhausted editors with lower hanging fruit to pick.
#5 Posted by MARK PILLOW, CJR on Tue 16 Jul 2013 at 09:54 PM
PS:
"SolveClimateNews claimed Koch Industries was concealing its financial interest in Keystone."
They did?! OMG. SolveClimate has a lot of explaining to do if the Koch's have been completely open about their Keystone support and intere...
"What the article fails to mention is the number of times Koch had publicly declared that they have no such financial interest."
*face palm*
So they aren't concealing, they're denying. :/
What are they denying then?
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20110210/koch-brothers-positioned-be-big-winners-if-keystone-xl-pipeline-approved
"A SolveClimate News analysis, based on publicly available records, shows that Koch Industries is already responsible for close to 25 percent of the oil sands crude that is imported into the United States, and is well-positioned to benefit from increasing Canadian oil imports.
A Koch Industries operation in Calgary, Alberta, called Flint Hills Resources Canada LP, supplies about 250,000 barrels of tar sands oil a day to a heavy oil refinery in Minnesota, also owned by the Koch brothers.
Flint Hills Resources Canada also operates a crude oil terminal in Hardisty, Alberta, the starting point of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline."
That would be the same Flint Hills who, in 2009:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20111004/koch-brothers-koch-industries-flint-hills-financial-interest-canada-energy-board-keystone-xl-pipeline
"applied for—and won—"intervenor status" in the National Energy Board hearings that led to Canada's 2010 approval of its 327-mile portion of the pipeline. The controversial project would carry heavy crude 1,700 miles from Alberta to the Texas Gulf Coast.
In the form it submitted to the Energy Board, Flint Hills wrote that it "is among Canada's largest crude oil purchasers, shippers and exporters. Consequently, Flint Hills has a direct and substantial interest in the application" for the pipeline under consideration.
To be approved as an intervenor, Flint Hills had to have some degree of "business interest" in Keystone XL, Carole Léger-Kubeczek, a National Energy Board spokeswoman, told InsideClimate News. Intervenors are granted the highest level of access in hearings, with the option to ask questions."
cont..
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 16 Jul 2013 at 10:35 PM
/:/
So, the Kochs aren't hiding their keystone involvement, they're denying it. I see. Okay, so what was your complaint again?
"What the article fails to mention is the number of times Koch had publicly declared that they have no such financial interest. By not sharing that key bit of info SolveClimate was not practicing objective journalism."
You mean the reuter's article who's link you borked by putting an extra comma on the end?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/25/idUS336798587820110525
The one that has a section which says:
"Koch Industries' representatives told Waxman's staff last week that their company has neither invested in Keystone XL nor taken a public stance on the pipeline project."
Well that's reuters. What about those hippies at Inside Climate?
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20111018/henry-waxman-koch-industries-brothers-flint-connection-keystone-xl-pipeline-oil-sands-upton-whitfield
"In an email to InsideClimate News, Philip Ellender, president and chief operating officer at Koch Companies Public Sector, again denied that Koch has any interest in Keystone XL. "As previously stated, Koch Industries has no financial stake in the Keystone pipeline," he said. "We are not party to its design or construction, we are not an investor in the project, and we are not a proposed shipper or customer of oil delivered by this pipeline."
:/
Maybe what you mean when you use the phrase "failing to mention" differs from everybody else, but from my eyes, from the articles you linked, they mentioned it.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 16 Jul 2013 at 10:43 PM
In the meantime, let's look at what the Koch's have been lobbying for when it comes to their enterprises, like Flint Hills:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/04/06/3936/kochs-web-influence
and what the results of this is:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/21/324969/forbes-koch-brothers-now-worth-50-billion/
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 16 Jul 2013 at 10:52 PM
"A journalist needs to be an advocate, an advocate for the truth."
Do you read much by George Orwell?
#9 Posted by Mort Todtman, CJR on Tue 16 Jul 2013 at 10:56 PM
Tell me Mr. Thimbles, do you even know what an "intervenor" means? This is a tough one. You may need to have some facts at your disposal.
And for bonus points, why are the Sierra Club, labor unions and a couple of Canadian Indian tribes also listed as intervenors? Do they have a business interest in Keystone? Would love to know how you connect those dots.
#10 Posted by Mort Todtman, CJR on Tue 16 Jul 2013 at 11:06 PM
And before any right wing hacks can poke their heads in and say SOROS!
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/09/opensecrets-battle---koch-brothers.html
The only category of spending Soros beats the Kochs on is 527 spending, and he blew that money in 2004 and 2008. Since 2010 and the tea party, the Kochs are it, particularly in lobbying expenditures which Koch's beat Soros 50 million to 12.
And, as everybody should be aware, the Kochs aren't the only conservative moneybags in town, whereas Soros was pretty much alone on that level.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 16 Jul 2013 at 11:09 PM
Oh hey Mort, didn't see you up there.
"Do you read much by George Orwell?"
Yeah, I'm a big fan of 'Politics and the English Language'. Cuts through a lot of bullshit in that piece.
Oh wait, you're trying to be funny... because you think being an advocate for the truth isn't a journalist's job.
Have you read 1984? Or was it like those reuters articles where you read the title and decided that was enough?
"Tell me Mr. Thimbles, do you even know what an "intervenor" means? This is a tough one. You may need to have some facts at your disposal."
Oh dear. Sorry folk, morty's made me have to do the old link storm.
Yes, I know what an 'intervenor' is. It is someone who, during the course of a proposed action, declares their interest in that action so that those interests can be taken into account while the proposal's being discussed and so they can be well informed about the proposal.
So like on this one
http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/archives/rthnb/nws/nwsrls/2010/nwsrls06-eng.html
(Click on link "[Folder 550305]" to get to intervenors link) shows a whole bunch of intervenors who are choosing to be informed and assert their interests during this meeting. There's your sierra club, your labor group, all sorts.
And then there's meetings on proposals like this one:
http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/archives/rthnb/nws/nwsrls/2008/nwsrls06-eng.html
(Click on link '[Folder 486602]')
Where there is no sierra group or labor, just a whole bunch of oil companies.
In fact, that Flint Group shows their interest in everything marked keystone, no matter how trivial. Wonder why.
"And for bonus points, why are the Sierra Club, labor unions and a couple of Canadian Indian tribes also listed as intervenors? Do they have a business interest in Keystone? "
Well that's the wonderful thing about having the full links, you can read them.
So, in the case of the Sierra Club, you can read their interest in their intervenor application:
"Sierra Club Canada is applying for Intervenor Status in the proceedings due to concern for the numerous, significant, and cumulative adverse impacts of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline... The role of Sierra Club Canada’s participation will be to ensure that the NEB rigorously examines the adverse cumulative impacts of the Keystone XL Pipeline including climate change, water and air quality, community health, food production, biodiversity, wildlife, and habitat fragmentation issues."
And you can read about the Alberta Federation of Labor's and the Alexander First Nation's interests and objections if you like.
Oh. and what did the Koch's say?
"Flint Hills Resources Canada LP ("Flint Hills") is among Canada's largest crude oil purchasers, shippers and exporters, coordinating supply for its refinery in Pine Bend, Minnesota. Consequently, Flint Hills has a direct and substantial interest in the application."
They do. They're there every meet. What's that interest?
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 17 Jul 2013 at 04:07 AM
Part of it is petcoke, which is basically coal made of petroleum refining waste.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/18/business/energy-environment/mountain-of-petroleum-coke-from-oil-sands-rises-in-detroit.html
http://priceofoil.org/2013/01/17/petroleum-coke-the-coal-hiding-in-the-tar-sands/
Check out 'price of oil' infographic. But that's a small part of the game.
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 17 Jul 2013 at 04:12 AM
Argh, spam filter captured my post.
Anyways, the big part of the game is this, breaking opec and getting cheap supply to shipping.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/07/01/everything-you-need-to-know-about-keystone-xl-why/
"With the possible exception of Citgo's and Royal Dutch Shell's refineries -- which have deep ties to Venezuelan and Saudi national oil companies, respectively -- these refiners will look to use the Keystone XL to replace heavy oil from other sources, such as Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and Venezuela. While we might call this North American energy independence, more importantly it provides the Gulf Coast with more options when it needs to purchase crude oil, which gives companies a better competitive pricing advantage.
If the current difference in price between Canadian oil sands and other heavy oil sources remains at current levels, refiners have the potential to save over $9 billion a year in feedstock costs. This presents a major upside for refiners that might enable them to continue the impressive run they have had the the past several months."
You are going to find that the pipeline will deliver cheap crap (crap, because - according to the good folks at
OrwellExxon the Canadian tar isn't oil) to refineries which will reduce the bargaining power of producer countries which got a lot of Mojo under Hugo Chavez and the stupid republican wars in the Middle East.You are going to find refiners and distributors are going to take those savings, put them in their pockets, and ship their tankers to the country who bids up the product.
Oh sorry, did I say countries? I meant oil speculators who will be able to create artificial supply shocks.
#14 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 17 Jul 2013 at 04:36 AM
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/08/17/121047/how-financial-speculation-in-oil.html
"For most of the last 30 years, end-users of oil — such as airlines, oil refiners and trucking companies — dominated the futures market. They traditionally composed 70 percent of the market.
Today, that ratio has been flipped on its head: Financial players with no intent of ever using a barrel of oil make up 70 percent to 80 percent of the market in any given week."
They'll doing the same play for LNG (Hey! Gasland 2 is out!) which is another Koch / Flint money maker)
But let's talk about the sands. Let's talk about keystone.
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 17 Jul 2013 at 04:45 AM
Keystone is a progress trap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT9FfECB8A8
So is Shale development. "The Terrifying Math of Global Warming" (a Bill McKibben piece) basically told us that we are in a pinch, where we are booking the poisons which will end us as assets. Those assets, in order to be monetized, must be consumed. If they are consumed, we will not have the stable climate which has supported human life since we stepped out of Africa.
But we are not just talking about the interests of the Koch Brothers, we are taking about the interests of union labor, of environmentalists, of First Nations.
I was watching a program on the sands a while back and it featured this guy, I think:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/in-oil-sands-a-native-millionaire-sees-economic-force-for-first-nations/article4479795/
He ran a first nation's business. Hundreds of millions earned from providing services to the oil companies. A tribe benefiting from the wealth brought into town in both donated infrastructure and in 34 dollar an hour jobs.
And this man was not happy. They had taken the forests and lakes of his grandfather and turned them into tailing ponds. They had taken the fish in Lake Athabasca and turned it into poison. They had defiled the water.
To him it was a calculation, that these companies were going to plunder the land of his fathers no matter what he did, so why not profit from the inevitable.
But he would stare at the smoke belching from the refinery towers and say, "I cannot take my son here. That tradition, that history was broken.. '
It's a progress trap.
#16 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 17 Jul 2013 at 05:08 AM
I love how the advocate for "truth" here hides behind an anonymous login name.
#17 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Sun 21 Jul 2013 at 11:51 AM
I love how "hides behind an anonymous login name" is the best shot you've got.
My sources are open to inspection. Disprove me. Make me look silly. Trust me, I won't mind the role reversal.
#18 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 21 Jul 2013 at 03:34 PM