Whoops! Reuters Acknowledges That Hoax Story On Climate Change Could Have Moved Financial Markets
Okay, this is funny, or perhaps deadly serious, depending on how you look at it.
Reuters is now admitting that their epic screw-up today — it fell for a hoax press release and ran a story about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supposedly changing its opposition to climate change legislation — could actually have moved financial markets, an acknowledgment of how serious the error really was.
“Reuters has an obligation to its clients to publish news and information that could move financial markets, and this story had the potential to do that,” Reuters spokesperson Courtney Dolan told me just now.
Dolan provided details on how the news org was hoaxed, acknowledging that Reuters had failed to contact the Chamber, in potential violation of a company policy against publishing stories based on “suspicious” press releases without contacting the subject. The Reuters story was picked up by the New York Times and the Washington Post and rocketed around the political world today.
In case you missed it, Reuters ran a story today claiming the Chamber’s shift, basing it on a fradulent press release claiming the Chamber “is throwing its weight behind strong climate legislation.” TPM confirmed this morning that the press release was a hoax and identified the perpetrators.
The Reuters spokesperson confirmed to me that the news org had received the fradulent press release around 9 AM saying that the Chamber had scheduled an 11 AM presser to “announce” its “shift.” The news org moved a story around the time of the presser.
Dolan acknowledged that “it’s company policy” to call subjects before basing stories on “suspicious press releases.” She added: “The person viewing this press release for whatever reason didn’t view it as suspicious.”
“Once we had confirmed the release was a hoax, we immediately issued a correction, and in keeping with Reuters policy, the story was subsequently withdrawn and an advisory sent to readers,” she said.
Yeesh! As I’m sure virtually every editor and reporter has said today, there but for the grace of God…
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Uh, so…does it look like it did move the markets at all?
BBQ, I think what Reuters is doing here is conceding the magnitude of their screw up.
The Heenes strike again in another desperate bid for attention.
Interesting hoax.
It forced The US Chamber of Commerce to issue a public denial of the claim that they had Come To Their Senses.
“Despite rumors in the Media, we wish to let the public know, that we absolutely have not come to our senses.” US Chamber Of Commerce
Take a look at the title for this story over on HuffPost… they must have the most tone-deaf, ham-fisted buffoon write their headline titles:
Punked! Chamber Of Commerce, Media Outlets Are Victims Of Climate Change Hoax (VIDEO)
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Sorry its not the link… as usual, they fix it on the actual story title
“Despite rumors in the Media, we wish to let the public know, that we absolutely have not come to our senses.” US Chamber Of Commerce
Liam….that is just too funny…is this an actual quote or an amusing figment of your Irish imagination? I’m beginning to suspect you were raised by Leprechauns at the end of the rainbow. That can’t be true though can it…you’d then have the proverbial pot of gold which would make you a Goldman Sachs Republican.
@Rukidding,
It is an absolute fact which I just made up.
@Rukidding
It my version of “truthiness”
Edit. My typing is terrible today. I am going to have to send my fingers out to have them retreaded.
@Rukidding
It is my version of “truthiness”
It does make Reuters and The Chamber both look ridiculous. What else is new? I didn’t notice any effect on the market though so it sounds like just another case of the media falling for a hoax with no fact checking.
Ahhh “truthiness” Thanks goodness for Steven Cobert.
So what is your “strategery” for handling hoaxes like this…seems like we’re getting one a week.
What hoax could we start about Beck. Perhaps that he has a brain…nooo that’s too far out there.
Truthiness.
Glenn Beck is Anti-Czars, just like Lenin and Stalin were. That makes Glenn Beck a Commie.
Actually Liam that is as logical as any other Fox Joke character assasination by dubious association.
I like it!!!
When I first saw the headline, I thought it was from The Onion. Reuters should have been suspicious
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Mr. Sargent:
“Did Sievers think the action — which duped Reuters, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, among others — was a success?
“It’s clear that the Chamber is having a crisis with its climate position,” said Sievers, referring to the recent exodus of several companies citing the Chamber’s opposition to efforts to address global warming. He said that in so far as his group is able to draw attention to their difficulties with maintaining an anti-climate stance privately, while pretending to support action, he views it as a success.”
It was a monumental success! One set of moonbat scoundrels duping another set of moonbat scoundrels.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101503799.html
Lot of that going around these past two weeks, huh?
Bilgey,
You were not born in the USA. so you should mind your own business, you Racist Citizen of the Confederacy.
Truce Liam
Angels are on right now and it’s already 1-0 Yanks. Sheesh. Talk to you guys after the game.
Absolute MUST-READ on Pakistan and U.S. use of Drones
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/revenge_drones
@Ethan,
Here is the absurd part of the War Mongers claims about how we have to send from 40,000 to 80,000 more Troops to Afghanistan to fight Al-Qaeda. The War Mongers claim we must do that, because our drone attacks at Al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership in Western Pakistan is not effective.
I wish those War Mongers would explain how having 150,000 Troops, and most likely just as many Contractors/Mercenaries based in Afghanistan would change that.
Since Al-Qaeda leadership is all in Pakistan, and we can not send in any Troops to that country, then it would not make any difference in our efforts to hunt down Bin Laden in Pakistan, if we had a million troops in Afghanistan.
If the clones are not effective now, then they will still not be, no matter how many troops we have based in Afghanistan.
Of course, like every thing else, when those warmongers want to make the case for more troops, which will require more contractor/mercenaries, and huge no bid contracts, then they love to trot out the old perfect being the only standard to measure by.
We have taken out a lot of top Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders with drone attacks, and yes we have missed some. So what. Have all the troops, and 300 billions we have spent in Afghanistan gotten better results over the past eight years, and if they have, then how do those war mongers explain the strength of the Taliban in Afghanistan today, per General McChrystal.
# rukidding | October 19th, 2009 at 04:07 pm
Actually Liam that is as logical as any other Fox Joke character assasination by dubious association.
I like it!!!
………………………
Truthiness.
Glenn Beck is not a man that sees America the way most patriotic loyal Americans do.
This is a man who has been palling around with anti-Czarists, just like Marx and Lenin did.
@Ethan: Thanks for the link. The article neatly encapsulates some of the arguments I have forwarded regarding drones and civilian deaths and potential illegality. “One-Third of People Killed in Pakistan Drone Strikes Are Civilians”
Not sure if it’s the same Peter Bergen, but there is this article today:
http://www.tnr.com/article/world/the-front
“And yet, as President Obama weighs whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, the connection between the region and Al Qaeda has suddenly become a matter of hot dispute…These arguments point toward one conclusion: The effort to secure Afghanistan is not a matter of vital U.S. interest. But those who make this case could not be more mistaken. Afghanistan and the areas of Pakistan that border it have always been the epicenter of the war on jihadist terrorism–and, at least for the foreseeable future, they will continue to be. Though it may be tempting to think otherwise, we cannot defeat Al Qaeda without securing Afghanistan.”
Again,
We can not send in Troops to Pakistan, so drones are all we can use to strike Al-Qaeda there. If you do not like that, then you are calling for us to not even strike at them.
This SBJ really is an idiot.
Again,
Here is the absurd part of the War Mongers claims about how we have to send from 40,000 to 80,000 more Troops to Afghanistan to fight Al-Qaeda. The War Mongers claim we must do that, because our drone attacks at Al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership in Western Pakistan is not effective.
I wish those War Mongers would explain how having 150,000 Troops, and most likely just as many Contractors/Mercenaries based in Afghanistan would change that.
Since Al-Qaeda leadership is all in Pakistan, and we can not send in any Troops to that country, then it would not make any difference in our efforts to hunt down Bin Laden in Pakistan, if we had a million troops in Afghanistan.
If the clones are not effective now, then they will still not be, no matter how many troops we have based in Afghanistan.
Of course, like every thing else, when those warmongers want to make the case for more troops, which will require more contractor/mercenaries, and huge no bid contracts, then they love to trot out the old perfect being the only standard to measure by.
We have taken out a lot of top Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders with drone attacks, and yes we have missed some. So what. Have all the troops, and 300 billions we have spent in Afghanistan gotten better results over the past eight years, and if they have, then how do those war mongers explain the strength of the Taliban in Afghanistan today, per General McChrystal.
“We can not send in Troops to Pakistan, so drones are all we can use to strike Al-Qaeda there. If you do not like that, then you are calling for us to not even strike at them.”
So you want us to leave Afghanistan and let Afghani security forces handle al qaeda on their own, but you don’t want to let Pakistan handle al qaeda on their own.
I get it now!
“After all, what good does it do to secure Afghanistan when Al Qaeda and the Taliban are headquartered in Pakistan? Actually, plenty. “Defending Afghanistan will not eradicate a terror network in Pakistan,” explains Georgetown professor Bruce Hoffman. “But failing to defend Afghanistan will almost certainly give Al Qaeda new momentum and the greater freedom of action that an expanded geographical ambit will facilitate.”
“There is historical precedent for Hoffman’s warning. Al Qaeda was founded in Pakistan in 1988, and many of the Taliban’s leaders and foot soldiers emerged out of Pakistani madrassas and refugee camps. The political vacuum in Afghanistan during the 1990s allowed these militants to expand into the country. The result, clearly, was a much stronger Al Qaeda.”
“This SBJ really is an idiot.”
Yes, he really is.
Here’s proof: “So you want us to leave Afghanistan and let Afghani security forces handle al qaeda on their own”
You want to stay in Afghanistan with inadequate forces?
Dudes – ““One-Third of People Killed in Pakistan Drone Strikes Are Civilians”
@Ethan: Since you linked to Bergen approvingly, I am wondering if you have the consistency, the integrity, to read his article and respond as to why he is incorrect?
http://www.tnr.com/article/world/the-front?page=0,0
@Ethan,
Did you ever notice that Stupidity and Racism go hand in hand. SBJ is a prime example.
Al-Qaeda is in Pakistan now, and not in Afghanistan. Republicans let them escape into Pakistan.
Now we have this Racist Moron, SBJ, calling for us to flood Afghanistan with Troops, where Al-Qaeda is not, and to stop Striking Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, where they are.
Like I said; A very strong correlation between Racism and Stupidity. SBJ is the poster child for that paradigm.
I’m done explaining, bud. Figure it out for yourself.
On the humor front, that report that Ethan links?
Our analysis of the drone campaign is based only on accounts from reliable media organizations with substantial reporting capabilities in Pakistan. We restricted our analysis to reports in the New York Times, Washington Post…and networks–the Associated Press, Reuters.”
Whoopsie!
SBJ must be an Al-Qaeda sympathizer. He wants us to grant them safe haven in Pakistan, and to stop launching strikes at them. At the same time, he wants us to destroy our military by getting them bogged down in Afghanistan, just like Al-Qaeda wants them to also.
I am calling for the US to strike al qaeda wherever we can, to stop the use of drones that kill hundreds of innocent civilians, to secure Afghanistan and prevent Taliban takevoer, to work with Pakistan to eradicate al qaeda and the Taliban…
Ethan – it takes a lot of nerve to link to Bergen to supposedly back up your opinion, and at the same time ignore his other conclusions about the necessity of securing Afghanistan. We can’t ’secure’ Afghanistan, as he suggests, by adopting a counter-terrorist strategy.
@Liam: Do you understand that the Afghani Taliban granted safe haven to al qaeda? Do you deny that they will do so again?
The 9/11 terrorist attacks began in our country and could have been prevented by a.) Better police work from the FBI/CIA b.)Bush paying better attention to the infamous August Memo c.)Simply bolt the door to the cockpit of aircraft……
The last major terrorist plot was foiled by POLICE Work…nobody in Afghanistan helped at all…we are not under assault from another nation…this is a worldwide criminal conspiracy of religious nuts!!!
Again not to brag or disqualify anybody’s opinion…but here is a question I asked myself before I volunteered for Vietnam…am I ready to put my life on the line for the cause?
All of you ask yourselves…are you ready to put YOUR life on the line for these chicken hawk war mongers. If you rail at my characterization then HONESTLY ask yourself are you ready to put your life on the line over there for THIS CAUSE? If you can’t say yes then shut yur yaps!!! Just because we have young men who volunteer to do our fighting for us doesn’t make it moral to consider them expendable. I only pray and hope Obama understands this!!!!
“He wants us to grant them safe haven in Pakistan.”
We just gave Pakistan – what was it? – $7 billion and “in return” they are launching a huge offensive against the Taliban and al qaeda. How in the heck is that a safe haven? Do you get all of your news from Reuters?
“The 9/11 terrorist attacks began in our country…”
“Nearly every major jihadist plot against Western targets in the last two decades somehow leads back to Afghanistan or Pakistan. The first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 was masterminded by Ramzi Yousef, who had trained in an Al Qaeda camp on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Ahmed Ressam, who plotted to blow up LAX airport in 1999, was trained in Al Qaeda’s Khaldan camp in Afghanistan. Key operatives in the suicide attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 and the USS Cole in 2000 trained in Afghanistan; so did all 19 September 11 hijackers. The leader of the 2002 Bali attack that killed more than 200 people, mostly Western tourists, was a veteran of the Afghan camps.”
I’d consider volunteering if I wasn’t too old, too fat, and gay!
SBJ is such a Moron that he does not understand that we have been giving Pakistan Billions ever year for decades, and that Pakistan is responding to Terrorist attacks against their own military , police, and civilians, and are not doing it for the USA.
SBJ is just trying to duck the fact, that he wants the USA to stop striking at Al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan.
He has been complaining about the USA strikes in Pakistan, for several weeks now. He was doing so, long before Pakistan decided to go after the militants in their country.
SBJ sure wants us to go soft on Al-Qaeda Leaders, while he wants us to get bogged down, with a huge army, for decades in Afghanistan..
Sure reminds one of how the Right Wingers let Bin Laden escape, after he killed three thousand on 9/11 and instead got us bogged down in Iraq, and got up to five thousand more Americans killed.
Perhaps those Neo-Con Chicken Hawks let Bin Laden escape, in order to have an excuse for starting a major war in Iraq, in order to take care of Halliburton, etc.
Now that the Iraq gravy train is being returned to the depot, Chicken Hawk War Mongers, and War Profiteers are pushing hard to scale up the war spending in Afghanistan; and it sure sounds like SBJ sure is worried that we might decapitate Al-Qaeda in Pakistan.
Why else would he be calling for the USA to stop striking at them. He sure did not care about the 100,000 or more civilians that were killed in Iraq, but he is so concerned about some people being killed in Al-Qaeda compounds in Pakistan, that he keeps insisting that we should stop all air strikes at those who struck us on 9/11
There sure is the strong stench of a war mongering rat emanating from this SBj huckster.
Dude – ““One-Third of People Killed in Pakistan Drone Strikes Are Civilians”
“The strikes have killed, since 2006, between 750 and 1000 people; 20 of them have been “leaders of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and allied groups”; and “the real total of civilian deaths since 2006 appears to be in the range of 250 to 320, or between 31 and 33 percent.”
20 leaders, 300 innocent men, women, and children in a country with which we are not at war. 10+ innocent souls for every leader. This is the CIA killing these innocent civilians, not our armed forces. We can ably support Pakistan and fight al qaeda without resorting to this.
SBJ
Sure wants to make sure that no more Al-Qaeda leaders get killed by US Strikes.
He did not care that 100,000 Iraqi civilian got killed by his sides war of choice in Iraq.
He is a complete fraud. He does not care about those people who died in Al-Qaeda compounds. He just wants to keep Al-Qaeda around as an excuse for war profiteering.
Ron Paul is the leader of SBJ’s Libertarian philosophy, and Ron Paul is against having any Troops in Afghanistan. That makes SBJ A Non-Libertarian, Libertarian, who was not going to vote in the last election, until a black man got on the ticket.
(Sorry for the duplicate post)
Dude – ““One-Third of People Killed in Pakistan Drone Strikes Are Civilians”
“The strikes have killed, since 2006, between 750 and 1000 people; 20 of them have been “leaders of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and allied groups”; and “the real total of civilian deaths since 2006 appears to be in the range of 250 to 320, or between 31 and 33 percent.”
20 leaders, 300 innocent men, women, and children in a country with which we are not at war. 10+ innocent souls for every leader. This is the CIA killing these innocent civilians, not our armed forces. We can ably support Pakistan and fight al qaeda without resorting to this.
None of which changes the fact that
SBJ
Sure wants to make sure that no more Al-Qaeda leaders get killed by US Strikes.
He did not care that 100,000 Iraqi civilian got killed by his sides war of choice in Iraq.
He is a complete fraud. He does not care about those people who died in Al-Qaeda compounds. He just wants to keep Al-Qaeda around as an excuse for war profiteering.
Ron Paul is the leader of SBJ’s Libertarian philosophy, and Ron Paul is against having any Troops in Afghanistan. That makes SBJ A Non-Libertarian, Libertarian, who was not going to vote in the last election, until a black man got on the ticket.
“Nearly every major jihadist plot against Western targets in the last two decades somehow leads back to Afghanistan or Pakistan. The first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 was masterminded by Ramzi Yousef, who had trained in an Al Qaeda camp on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Ahmed Ressam, who plotted to blow up LAX airport in 1999, was trained in Al Qaeda’s Khaldan camp in Afghanistan. Key operatives in the suicide attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 and the USS Cole in 2000 trained in Afghanistan; so did all 19 September 11 hijackers. The leader of the 2002 Bali attack that killed more than 200 people, mostly Western tourists, was a veteran of the Afghan camps.”
Sounds like more of a reason to keep hitting their camps in Pakistan with drones.
You want us to stop going after those camps, so you must actually support Al-Qaeda.
“And yet, as President Obama weighs whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, the connection between the region and Al Qaeda has suddenly become a matter of hot dispute…These arguments point toward one conclusion: The effort to secure Afghanistan is not a matter of vital U.S. interest. But those who make this case could not be more mistaken. Afghanistan and the areas of Pakistan that border it have always been the epicenter of the war on jihadist terrorism–and, at least for the foreseeable future, they will continue to be. Though it may be tempting to think otherwise, we cannot defeat Al Qaeda without securing Afghanistan.”
“The commander-in-chief hugged a grieving mother, telling her to be proud of her fallen son, a Marine killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan’s Helmand province. Lisa Xiarhos also had a message for President Barack Obama: “Be strong and get the job done,” she recalls telling him. “Don’t back down. Send more troops. Support the ones that are there and do whatever you can.”
Did she tell him to stop attacking Al-Qaeda camps in Pakistan, like you want him to do.
Your tender concern for Al-Qaeda, and their families is really heartwarming.
You would rather see a lot more of our brave young soldiers get killed in Afghanistan, than harm the hair of one more Al-Qaeda terrorist in their camps in Afghanistan.
SBJ wants to coddle Al-Qaeda, and send many more American troops into the Afghanistan meat grinder. How patriotic of him!
Especially easy to pull off when 99.8% of the newsroom shares the same far leftwing views and biases displayed by most of you people here.