6

Environment/Energy

Andrew Revkin Finds Journalism Religion AFTER Posting Fraudulent Document

New York Times climate blogger Andrew Revkin on Tuesday afternoon was one of the first to print fake documents attributed to The Heartland Institute. One of Heartland’s senior fellows for environmental policy exchanged some emails today with Revkin, pointing out there were “inaccuracies” in the documents that he posted online — without first verifying their authenticity with The Heartland Institute.

It appears Revkin’s journalistic ethics were reawakened upon his realization that he’s been “had” by lefitst alamarists. Here’s Revkin’s response to our senior fellow from this afternoon:

From: Andrew Revkin [mailto:revkin@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 1:23 PM
To: Craig Idso
Subject: Re: the strategy doc

looking back, it could well be something that was created as a way to assemble the core points in the batch of related docs.

there are other errors that another reporter noticed. and of course heartland is now saying all the other docs are – at best – stolen and/or of uncertain provenance/accuracy til Bast gets on the ground..

wacky stuff, this end of the climate fight.

i’m going to hold off writing (including our exchange) til i know more.

i’ll be in the air most of tomorrow, which may leave some time to breath and have the dust settle.

Yes. “Wacky stuff.” A good idea to hold off writing until you “know more” — such as the facts. That used to be called responsible journalism.

— Jim Lakely

Jim is the the director of communications at The Heartland Institute. Prior to joining Heartland, he was an ink-stained newspaperman for 16 years with many stops in "old media." Jim covered Congress and The White House during the George W. Bush administration for The Washington Times, and worked as a reporter, editorial writer and columnist for newspapers in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and California. He has appeared on the Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-Span, and many local and national talk radio shows to talk politics and policy.

  • Michael Cejnar

    As I wrote on Jo Nova’s blog, this is fantastic publicity for Hartland you could not buy. Go on the front foot and point out with how little you are fighting the huge climate industry and in fact ask for donations from the public. Put a donate button up and publicise it. I will happily donate.

  • mfm69cubs

    How telling, that Andy says “..this end of the climate fight.”  He knows they’re beaten.

  • Shane Ricks

    This is nothing more than rhetoric. Rhetoric and its usage is a tool of non-conservativist and liberal methodology. True conservativist character does not require rhetoric; facts, history, and experience stand for themselves. But this is about politics and nothing more. Real concern for the reality of life makes all arguments moot. Prattle from those who lack authority on the subject is merely a gimmick for monetary gain.

    It cannot be simultaneously an “accidental leak” and “stolen”. It is either one or the other. It cannot be fraudulent if these are actual documents accidentally leaked. Yes, as Mr. Cejnar stated, this will be fantastic publicity. Are these attempts at damage control the publicity Heartland wants? Two quotes I’ve always been fond of:

    “Reputation is what the world thinks a man is; character is what he really is.”
    “Reputation is what you do when other people are watching. Character is what you do when no one is watching.”

    If Heartland’s agenda cannot stand up to public scrutiny and demands legal threats in order to prevent its ideals and agendas from being open to public observation and criticism, what does that say about that agenda and the inherent ideals? Yes, plenty of publicity to come from this. Perhaps it is all about the belief that there is no bad publicity. But again, what does that say about one’s character?

    • Modelsarenotreality

      I’m not sure I understand what part of “Some of these documents were stolen from Heartland, at least one is a fake, and some may have been altered.” confuses you. Do you understand that SOME were stolen and AT LEAST ONE was faked? Do you know what the term “some” means?

      If YOUR agenda cannot stand up to public scrutiny and you require FORGED documents to prove how evil anyone who challenges CAGW is, what does that say about YOUR agenda and its inherent ideals?

      Nice try. Did you go to the Dan Rather school of journalism?

  • hughk

    What a “wacky” web we weave….

    “i’m going to hold off writing (including our exchange) til i know more.”

    Then that will certainly be the last we hear from Andy.

  • cwon1

    Revkin should be fired. Just as Dan Rather was correctly but without the footdragging and saving face efforts.

    Friday would be a good day to go.