Five days later, InsideClimate News ran an article by Elizabeth McGowan headlined, “Koch Bros. Accused of Stonewalling Congress on Their Keystone XL Pipeline Interest.” When Reuters carried that piece, too, the company decided it was time to go on the offensive.
Phillip Ellender, whom Politico called “the Koch brothers’ enforcer” in a June profile, sent an e-mail to the wire service’s managing editor, Jack Reernick in May, which began:
For the second time in recent weeks, Reuters has permitted an agenda-driven advocacy organization, SolveClimate [referring to InsideClimate’s original name], to run an article on your news agency about Koch Industries that is factually inaccurate and beneath Reuters’ standards.
The letter went on to say that Koch had no financial stake in Keystone XL, that it was not a proposed shipper or customer of oil delivered by the pipeline, and that it had taken no position on the legislative proposal to construct the pipeline. It also called InsideClimate “a self-described advocacy organization, which is also easily discerned from the articles since they are littered with opinionated assertions about what it thinks the administration and Congress ought to do or not do.”
Richard Baum, Reuters’s general manager for New York and Canada replied:
We take feeds from several news organizations on the condition that they uphold Reuters standards. We’re satisfied that SolveClimate, which is a news organization, meets those. I have in particular checked that they contact companies for comment. SolveClimate says they have tried to get comment from you repeatedly without success.
Baum added that it was Reuters’s policy to direct complaints about “third-party content” to those who supplied it.
Ellender wrote back expressing dismay at Baum’s response. A few days later, according to the account laid out at Kochfacts.com, he followed up with another e-mail that laid out a variety of specific complaints about Sassoon. They included Sassoon’s ownership of Science First, Inc., which Sassoon once described on his LinkedIn page as a “communications consulting practice devoted to helping organizations working in the public interest to advance their agendas”; the fact that Science First received funding from The Energy Foundation (which supports actions to address climate change); and the fact that Sassoon had written a report for Greenpeace and what Ellender described as “advocacy articles” for The Huffington Post and National Geographic.
“Mr. Sassoon seems to have an active financial relationship with numerous groups that he is reporting on in your pages—and yet he is being presented to Reuters readers as an objective, legitimate news source,” Ellender concluded. “He also takes grants from advocacy groups with the explicit goal of helping advance their environmental agenda—a fact that is being obscured from Reuters readers.”
Baum rejected nearly all of Ellender’s contentions, writing that Sassoon had assured him that since Reuters.com began publishing stories from SolveClimate in 2010, neither Sassoon nor Science First had been involved in any business other than SolveClimate, and that Science First “is a shell company he uses exclusively as the legal entity of SolveClimate.” Baum pointed out that The Energy Foundation described its grant to SolveClimate as supporting “objective, nonpartisan reporting of climate and energy issues in 2010 midterms.”
With regard to Sassoon’s other writings, Baum said the work for Greenpeace and The Huffington Post predated his relationship with Reuters:
Mr Sassoon says that in-between that period and the start of the Reuters.com relationship he decided to focus his work exclusively on building up SolveClimate as a non-partisan organization. I think he made a subsequent misstep with the National Geographic blog post that you mention, but not a fatal one. The post was published this year and concerns an activist who at the time was awaiting trial, not convicted. It was an interesting story covered by many media outlets. This post was not written in a form that would have been published on Reuters.com, but then of course it wasn’t.
What’s been left out of the ferocious debate over the pipeline, however, is the prospect that if president Obama allows a permit for the Keystone XL to be granted, he would be handing a big victory and great financial opportunity to Charles and David Koch, his bitterest political enemies and among the most powerful opponents of his clean economy agenda..
Doesn’t the premise of this statement smack of “corporatism” .. in the sense that the left has twisted it into meaning? Should the administration even be weighing political considerations when making permitting decisions? Not that they haven’t been caught doing this in the past ( to the point of orgasm evidently) but I thought that was the kind of transgression good lefty investigative journalists abhor … you know … policy decisions based on whats good for your supporters and bad for your enemies?
But I suppose the new spin on these things is "four legs good, two legs better"
And does Anyone but me find the left wing obsession with the Kochs a bit unnerving? How long until someone deranged lefty drives on down to Wichita with a bottle of Jack, a copy of Mein Kampf, and a Glock looking to slay the Koch-ta-pus ala Steve Kangas and Richard Mellon Scaife?
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Wed 9 Nov 2011 at 05:31 PM
Dear Mr. Brainard,
Goodness gracious, you buried the lede! I wish it hadn’t taken you almost 3,000 words to arrive at your conclusion: “There are no correctable mistakes in InsideClimate’s work.” That’s exactly right, and precisely why the Kochs have never asked us to make any corrections.
I also wish you had mentioned that in hindsight our original story turns out to have been quite prescient, for media outlets are now filled with stories about Obama's political calculus as he weighs a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline.
We were the first to expose that dimension of this important story. Since then environmentalists have become an unexpected political force, and so the political choice the president faces on Keystone XL has become that much more difficult.
We don’t agree with many particulars of your analysis, but it is not worth quibbling now. We’ll make our case in our work, and we welcome your continued scrutiny.
Best Regards
David Sassoon, Publisher
InsideClimate News
#2 Posted by David Sassoon, CJR on Wed 9 Nov 2011 at 06:34 PM
"How long until someone deranged lefty drives on down to Wichita with a bottle of Jack, a copy of Mein Kampf, and a Glock looking to slay the Koch-ta-pus ala Steve Kangas and Richard Mellon Scaife?"
Gee, I didn't hear no calls for temperament when it was liberals getting shot up over conspiracy theories, and these ones about Scaife and the Kochs have the added incentive of being true.
So when it's ACORN, Soros, and Tides it's "Bullhorns away! Don't Retreat, Reload!"
But when it's Kochs, ALEC, and Americans For Prosperity it's "Guys, shouldn't we be mindful of what you're saying? You know someone might get the wrong message and do something."
"Is it true?"
"Yeah but,"
"Then why is it my responsibility what someone else does based on someone else's actions? And let's say it is my responsibility, then are you going to take responsibility for the things your crazies have done to innocent people based on your lies?"
"No. Guns don't kill people, bullets do."
I love it when the right starts worrying about the left acting like the right.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 9 Nov 2011 at 07:06 PM
So, they found nothing, they got their facts wrong, and they've got conflicts, but the Kochs are bad guys so none of that matters.
#4 Posted by Tom T., CJR on Thu 10 Nov 2011 at 11:34 PM
So this news organization singles out one oil company due to admitted partisan considerations, pursues them doggedly and in doing so, completely fails to come up with enough evidence to support its case. It then misrepresents a document to divine a nefarious meaning.
And this is applauded in the CJR? Better yet, this magazine actively encourages the org to continue pursuing the Koch's (because there has to be something there, right?).
And this is the gold standard of American journalism? Here's a thought: Do the investigative legwork and let your conclusions be drawn from the facts, rather than let your agenda determine your fact-finding.
Am I ever glad I didn't pursue a journalism degree at Columbia. This is shameful.
#5 Posted by Jen, CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 08:10 PM
I've got to agree with #5 Jen. A sorry excuse for journalism. Sassoon is apparently his own editor, so never gets called out for his pretense of reporting.
The correctable mistake in Sassoon's work is that InsideClimate should have waited to write anything until it had completed their investigation, and found --> surprise! nothing nefarious about Keystone XL and the Kock brothers. Then they could have written that they did all this investigating and the Kock's are off the hook. Publishing premature (and bleedingly incomplete) snippets only served to smear the Kock's with unwarranted insinuations--> and that, folks, is not journalism
For the CJR to endorse that kind of sloppy activist-journalism is a sad commentary on Columbia.
#6 Posted by Kip Hansen, CJR on Sun 13 Nov 2011 at 09:09 PM
CJR and Curtis Brainard deserve praise for taking a studied look at our efforts to detail those faults, but their lengthy analysis still leaves open several key questions and points of fact.
Both CJR and David Sassoon inaccurately maintain that there are no formal corrections required. As we have repeatedly stated and documented, and as the CEO of TransCanada recently stated as well, Koch has no financial stake in the pipeline. We are not party to its design or construction. We are not a proposed shipper or customer of oil delivered by this pipeline. These core facts have been omitted from the reporting and instead, we are presented — in headline and content — as though we are a central party to the issue. As the CEO of TransCanada, the company that actually owns the project recently said in a widely reported conference call, “[Regarding] collusion with the Koch brothers, I can tell you that Koch isn’t a shipper and I’ve never met the Koch brothers before.” Mr. Sassoon’s misstatements need to be formally corrected and clarified for readers, as the journalism rulebook would have it.
Although Koch made public on October 20 a detailed account of those falsehoods, omissions, and other journalistic distortions by Mr. Sassoon and InsideClimate, it is only now, nearly three weeks later, that Mr. Sassoon can muster the effort to reply. And he chose to do so in the comment thread of an independent journalism review that faults his work on those same counts. That indifference to standards speaks volumes about InsideClimate’s and his unreliability.
#7 Posted by KochFacts, CJR on Mon 14 Nov 2011 at 05:01 PM
There are facts, and then there are KochFacts.
These are the facts.
Never, ever in any of the pieces InsideClimate News has published on the Kochs did we say that the Kochs have a financial interest in the Keystone XL pipeline itself, or are a party to its design and construction. Never.
Never, ever did we say that the Kochs have entered into a contract with TransCanada to ship or receive diluted bitumen through the Keystone XL pipeline. Never.
And never, ever have the Kochs asked InsideClimate News to issue any corrections. Never.
We would like to accommodate any legitimate concerns the Kochs may have, but it is impossible for us to issue corrections that were never requested to statements we have never made.
What we have said is that the Kochs are well-positioned to benefit from the Keystone XL pipeline, and we stand by that statement.
The Kochs themselves claim on one of their own websites to be “among Canada’s largest crude oil purchasers, shippers, and exporters.” And they told Canada’s National Energy Board in an official regulatory filing that they have “a direct and substantial interest in the application” TransCanada filed to build the Keystone XL pipeline.
The Kochs could make a great contribution to public understanding if they would simply disclose the nature and extent of their business interests in Canada’s oil sands/tar sands, and how they anticipate the Keystone XL pipeline, if it gets built, would influence these direct and substantial interests.
CJR and Curtis Brainard are encouraging us to find out with greater detail and precision.
Would the Kochs care to help us by providing some simple facts?
David Sassoon, Publisher, InsideClimate News
#8 Posted by David Sassoon, Publisher, InsideClimate News, CJR on Tue 22 Nov 2011 at 02:39 PM