www.newsbusters.org
Smells Fishy: NYT Accused of Printing Article Paid for and Sourced By Green Groups
According to documents exclusively obtained by NewsBusters, the Chilean Salmon Council is accusing The New York Times of publishing an article that was paid for, sourced, and written by a web of left-leaning environmental activist groups and journalists. The accusations have so far led to an on-going internal investigation at the so-called “paper of record.”
The documents allege that the August article titled “Salmon Farms in Patagonia Face Growing Opposition” was put together by three journalists with ties to an environmental journalism outfit called the Earth Journalism Network (EJN). The financial backers of EJN include several organizations that also fund the experts the journalists cited as sources in their article.
The journalists in question are freelancers Lucy Meyer and Casey Ann Smith. Both reporters attended University of California Berkeley, where Meyer took part in EJN-sponsored course and Smith was the recipient of a EJN grant in 2019 (more on that grant below). Their salmon article is the only piece either reporter has authored for the Times.
John Barlett, a New York Times journalist based out of Chile, is noted as a contributor to the report. Bartlett is also a contributor to Dialogue Earth, which is affiliated with EJN.
One of the major accusations against the journalists and their article is the use of multiple expert sources whose organizations share revenue streams with Earth Journalism Network.
For instance, the article cites “Liesbeth van der Meer, the vice president of Oceana Chile, a nonprofit conservation group.” On their website, Oceana lists the Adessium Foundation, Arcadia, Dutch Postcode Lottery, the David & Lucile Packard Foundation, and the Waitt Foundation as organizations that have “awarded” them “$500,000 or more.”
All of those organizations are also “gratefully acknowledge[d]” as donors to Earth Journalism Network, on their website.
But that’s not all.
The article also cites “Dr. Felipe Cabello, a professor of microbiology and immunology at New York Medical College.” He has a relationship with Oceana that dates back over a decade.
The journalists also cited the work of the Monterey Bay Aquarium:
Since 2014, the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch, a global authority on sustainable seafood, has advised consumers to avoid most salmon farmed in Chile, citing the industry’s reliance on antibiotics.
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation has given the aquarium $30,000,000 over the past six years ($5,000,000 each year).
The Times article also leaned heavily on a report from the United Nations that condemned the expansion of salmon fisheries in Chile, and used it to chide the industry there:
In April, a report for the United Nations called salmon farming “one of the main threats to the environment” in Patagonia. David R. Boyd, an associate professor at the University of British Columbia who prepared the U.N. report, recommended suspending “the expansion of salmon aquaculture pending independent scientific analysis of adverse environmental impacts” — a call that the industry rejected.
Interestingly, the United Nations received $5.5 million in environmental funds from Bloomberg Philanthropies, which lists Chile’s waters as one of their focus points. The person leading Bloomberg’s environmental initiatives program is a woman named Antha Williams, who conveniently sits on the board of directors for Oceana, which also lists Bloomberg as a donor.
It’s worth pointing out that targeting blue collar industries for destruction is in the wheelhouse of Bloomberg Philanthropies. As MSC Business Associate Editor Joseph Vazquez reported last year, the organization pledged $500 million to destroy the U.S. coal industry.
The Times did admit in the article that “Early reporting was supported by a grant from Internews’ Earth Journalism Network, a nonprofit,” but didn’t disclose what that meant.
In a phone call with a representative of the Chilean Salmon Council, a rough transcript of which was obtained by NewsBusters, Smith admitted that she and Meyer’s flight to Chile was paid for by EJN.
“We each received $1,000 to supplement just plane tickets, essentially, and that's as much as I know about that funding, but because we did receive money, that's why that tagline was in the piece,” she said to the representative.
And yet, Massimiliano Colonna, the director of communications at Internews (EJN's parent organization) was on social media praising the work EJN did for the article. "Local journalism is key to uncovering the big stories that end up on the largest new outlets. Furht proobelow-andkudos to Internews' very own Earth Journalism Network for supporting early reporting on this!" he wrote.
Internews even credited their funding of Smith and Meyer: "Lucy Meyer and Casey Ann Smith write in The New York Times about the growing opposition to Patagonia salmon farms from evironmentalists and Indigenous people in the region. Early reporting was supported by a grant from Internews' Earth Journalsim Network."
Smith also denied knowing “who funds who,” but seemingly admitted that she was introduced to many of the sources they cited while on that trip:
SMITH: I'm not familiar with who funds who. We spoke with people on the ground when you were in Chile, and everybody who is quoted in the story has some genesis in reporting on the ground several years back.
REPRESENTATIVE: From what I can tell, Oceana, United Nations, Dr. Cabello, Monterey Bay Aquarium, all share funders with EJN.
SMITH: Again, I'm not privy to the—that wasn't something that was forethought for us when we were reporting.
NewsBusters also obtained an email between the representative and the Times’s communications director, Charlie Stadtlander, who insisted: “the journalists have no affiliation with EJN and this piece was reported and edited entirely independently under The New York Times's editorial direction without any contact with EJN.”
That obviously does square with the fact that the origin of the report was admittedly from that EJN-funded trip to Chile.
In the call, Smith denied that EJN funded their reporting, but noted that they did make early connections with some sources they cited in the article:
To say that it funded the reporting is somewhat misleading, though, because there was so, so much reporting that happened totally independent of Berkeley, of grant dollars that happened for years after that, number one. And then number two, again, these were people who we were introduced to us by word of mouth on the ground or handing us somebody's business card. And there were many other folks we talked to as well, like dozens who didn't make it into the story, so I would push back on that side of things.
Meanwhile, EJN has bragged about their “collaboration with NYT and others” in the past, according to their slide here:
In another letter to the Times, the representative points out that EJN doesn’t consider itself a “news outlet” but rather a vector “seeding” stories to “local, national, and international media”:
Readers deserve to know that the way EJN has laundered its content through the New York Times is not happenstance, but instead the main strategic aim of its operations. As EJN’s Executive Director James Fahn–who again, was literally grading your freelancers’ reporting as their professor–explains here, “Although we republish and distribute stories we support widely, EJN is not a news outlet. We decided early on to focus on…seeding quality reporting in the local, national, and international media. This ensures that media outlets view us as a partner and supporter, rather than a competitor.”
NewsBusters also obtained an email from New York Times standards editor Susan Wessling, letting the representative know they opened an investigation. “I'm writing to let you know that I've received your letter and will look into your concerns,” she said.
News Feed (Home)
Popular Posts 
Events 
Blog 
Market 
Forum 
Headline News
VidWatch
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
