The “Bonus Eventus” Pseudo-scandal Continued
Pathetic Activism from Reporters Without Borders
The "case" against v-Fluence (Bonus Eventus) and "agrochemicals" is empty. Nevertheless, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) thought it was a good idea to publish a scathing press release against the news monitoring service. Was this a Pavlovian demonstration of support for a journalist (and a non-journalist) or a contribution to the underhanded attack against v-Fluence?
It is clear from reading the articles in Le Monde by Stéphane Foucart:
that the Lighthouse Reports file is baseless and empty.
And reading the articles on this blog, notably the extensive analysis by David Zaruk: “Desperate campaigns over alleged spying for industrialists - What is the activist strategy behind the investigation into a small consulting firm?”, (English version) we also understand that this campaign strategy offers important opportunities for posturing, disinformation and the manipulation of opinions.
The Reporters Without Borders press release provides us with a prime example of this. But was the article on its own initiative, at the request of an influential group within the RSF, or perhaps something published unbeknown to RSF?
The title is a hammer blow: "RSF condemns the agrochemical industry’s shameful practice of profiling and slandering environmental journalists". Any resemblance to one of Stéphane Foucart's articles is obviously not coincidental.
In summary, the RSF states:
Following the release of the investigative report “Bonus Eventus Files” on September 27 by several international media outlets, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) condemns the collection and misuse of environmental journalists’ personal information to fuel slander campaigns orchestrated by the agrochemical industry. RSF calls on the authorities to swiftly open a judicial inquiry into these scandalous practices, carried out by an American company.
Did these people fact-check? Did they contact v-Fluence? Apparently not.
“Journalist” Victims?
They could have learned from David Zaruk (or simply from a basic Internet search) that "the American investigative journalist Carey Gillam, author of numerous articles and several essays on the pesticide industry, notably for The Guardian and The New York Times" is not a journalist...
Lighthouse Reports, an NGO working on contractual projects, was portrayed by the RSF as an “investigative media organization”...
Like Carey Gillam, Stéphane Foucart assumes the victim position:
Stéphane Foucart, a journalist for Le Monde whose articles are frequently targeted, explained that the information circulated by this platform is used to undermine solid scientific studies and their journalistic coverage. He pointed to a recently published study linking pesticides to increased infant mortality rates. “These attacks are then widely amplified on social media to erode public trust in recognized scientific work,” he told RSF.
Reporters Without Borders would be hard pressed to substantiate these allegations. The famous study Foucart cited, which is supposed to be among the “recognized scientific works”, was notably criticized by a certain Philippe Stoop, relayed by André Heitz, in “Bats, infant mortality, and your ecologist nephew”.
Stoop and Heitz acknowledge that the article did not have much impact, as did the article by Géraldine Woessner. Thus, Reporters Without Borders could not ignore the facts as regards "attacks ... widely amplified on social media". A simple search on the Internet is enough to find that out. This is a violation of the ABCs of journalism or reporting integrity.
Pot, Kettle, Foucart
What does Reporters Without Borders actually think of using the manufactured "Bonus Eventus" pseudo-scandal campaign to badmouth media actors who occasionally or regularly scrutinize the writings of Stéphane Foucart (and others)?
This is not Foucart’s first rodeo. His "Guardians of Reason" co-written with Stéphane Horel and Sylvain Laurens has given rise to some harsh reactions from other people mentioned therein.
A Moscow Show Trial?
Arthur Grimonpont, head of the global issues office of RSF, concluded with some hard-hitting remarks:
"These practices of profiling and spreading rumours that could undermine the integrity of journalists should not be allowed to flourish in a democratic state. A thorough investigation must be conducted in order to bring to justice all those involved in these scandalous attacks on the privacy and reputation of environmental journalists. These manipulation techniques aimed at influencing public debate constitute a direct attack on the public's right to reliable and independent information."
There is therefore a need for a "thorough investigation" into facts which are alleged to be... certain. It will likely be performed in a "Moscow Show Trial" style...
But it is hard to see how this could happen, since the small company in question is in the United States of America. All of their information comes from publicly accessible material. But no doubt these activist movements are very imaginative and they are benefitting from very generous foundation support.
We must ask ourselves what the objective of this RSF press release is.
Is this a Pavlovian demonstration of support for a journalist (and a non-journalist) playing the victim card (further amplifying their campaign)?
Or is this a contribution to the underhanded attack on v-Fluence?
It is probably both. But given the uncritical analysis and the uncritical repetition of the narrative of the consortium of activists that relies on the generous funding of anti-chemical foundations, a predatory US activist, a law firm suing v-Fluence, a Dutch foundation and journalists, and without the slightest regard for v-Fluence 's response to Lighthouse Reports – there is every reason to believe that their motive was to attack v-Fluence and shut down Bonus Eventus.
Translated by the Firebreak editor.
Note added by the Firebreak, October 4, 2024:
Reporters Without Borders has received around €2.5 million ($2.75 million) per year for the last three years from private foundations. While they express the importance of ethics and transparency, the RSF do not reveal which foundations donate to the organization. A simple search though reveals that The Oak Foundation has donated almost $2 million to RSF over three years (see image). The Oak Foundation also funded the researchers behind the Lighthouse Report that attacked v-Fluence and Bonus Eventus (to the tune of $800,000). It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that this RSF press release was likely biased by the interests of one of their largest funders who has been pulling the strings on this campaign from the shadows. What is unclear (and neither the NGO, Lighthouse Reports nor RSF would declare this) is whether this RSF engagement in the activist campaign was funded from their own Oak Foundation program or from the Lighthouse investigation budget. It seems transparency is a virtue the RSF preaches (…for others).
Even more problematic, the Oak Foundation uses donor-advised funds (which they call discretionary grants). These are anonymous donations made by special interest groups to the Oak Foundation for them to re-donate to earmarked organizations. Because neither the Oak Foundation nor Reporters Without Borders are transparent here, we can only speculate if this $2 million of RSF funding comes from organizations that would benefit from attacking Bonus Eventus (like the US tort law industry or the organic food lobby). What is clear is that none of the parties involved want a small private news monitoring and information service to exist and they are willing to play dirty to achieve their objective.
This is a worrying evolution in the decline in media integrity. Foundations and anonymous interest groups are now funding a good part of the reporting done by the mainstream media. A watchdog organization like Reporters Without Borders should be monitoring this situation. Instead, they appear to be on the take and engaging directly in the funded activism.
This is an English translation of an article published today on the French blogsite: “Agriculture, alimentation, santé publique... soyons rationnels”. The article was written by the editor, André Heitz, under his nom de plume: Wackes Seppi. The links go to the French articles, with the English link next to it where possible. André is a retired agronomist and a former international civil servant for the United Nations system. For those incapable of thinking on the basis of information: he is not working for any chemical or pesticide companies.
 |
|