The question for us is, does it significantly undermine our confidence in his ability to run a non-partisan news organization? The answer is no. All journalists engaged in non-partisan reporting must be able to leave their personal political views at their front door when they go to work. Our confidence that Mr. Sassoon’s staff do that remains and has been strengthened by his recent appointment of a new executive editor. [In September, CJR wrote about InsideClimate’s decision to hire Susan White, a former senior editor at ProPublica.]
Ellender was displeased, vowing that, “To the extent that coverage by SolveClimate about us appears on Reuters, we intend to point out the conflicts of interest and also that Reuters is apparently tolerating them. And when that coverage is inaccurate or slanted, we will take all necessary action, including alerting readers that the reporting is unreliable and agenda-driven.”
Round Two
Ellender carried through on his promise. On October 5, InsideClimate and its syndication partners ran an article by Stacy Feldman, which revealed that Flint Hills Resources, Koch’s Alberta-based subsidiary, had told Canadian regulators in 2009 that it had “a direct and substantial interest in the application” to build Keystone XL.
Canada’s National Energy Board was holding hearings that led to its 2010 approval of its portion of the pipeline. Flint Hills Resources applied for and won what is known as “intervener status” in the hearings, stating that because it was “among Canada’s largest crude oil purchasers, shippers and exporters, coordinating supply for its refinery in Pine Bend, Minnesota … [it had] “a direct and substantial interest in the application” to build the pipeline.
On Capitol Hill, the article prompted Waxman, whose first request that the Energy and Commerce Committee investigate Koch’s interest in Keystone XL was rebuffed, to repeat his plea. “There appears to be a direct contradiction between what Koch representatives told me and the assertion by a Koch subsidiary that it ‘has a direct and substantial interest’ in the Keystone XL pipeline,” he wrote in a letter to committee leaders. Koch Industries fired back almost immediately in a post at KochFacts.com, which read:
We have detailed publicly on numerous occasions (and to InsideClimate directly) why Flint Hills Resources Canada LP, a Koch subsidiary, applied for “intervener” status with the Canadian National Energy Board. An intervener in a NEB proceeding is entitled to gain access to information about the progress of a particular matter, in this case the “application” concerning the Keystone XL Pipeline project. Many others also applied and were granted intervener status in exactly the same way — including individual citizens, members of various First Nation groups, businesses, and environmental activists similar to Mr. Sassoon and InsideClimate.
… When a party applies to be an intervener, they formally state that they have an “interest” in the application that is being considered. That use of the word “interest” means, by first definition, curious or paying attention. But InsideClimate distorts that meaning as if it meant a financial interest or stake — a secondary but altogether different meaning of the word.
Around the same time that Kochfacts.com posted this missive, Koch launched its Google and Facebook ad campaign against Sassoon and InsideClimate.
Split Decision
Do Koch’s actions amount to media intimidation? Yes and no. InsideClimate deserves immense credit for digging where no other news outlet thought to dig. It exhibited the kind of dogged, investigative instinct that is too often lacking these days among its peers in the “mainstream media,” drawing Congressional attention in the process. But it failed to make its case.
The assertion in Sassoon’s February article that the Koch brothers are “positioned to be big winners” if the pipeline is approved is based on two pieces of circumstantial evidence: Koch’s role as a major player in Canadian oil industry and the 2009 market analysis that Keystone XL would drive up oil prices. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong. In fact, he’s probably right that Koch will benefit financially if the pipeline is built. But believing that and proving it—and establishing that Koch will benefit in a way that really matters—are two different things and it’s a distinction that gets to the heart of the standards of good journalism.
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