New documents filed in federal court are threatening to expose Reuters news reporter Kate Kelland for acting as Monsanto’s puppet

EXCERPT: Not only did [Reuters reporter Kate] Kelland write the story that Monsanto asked her to write in exactly the way company executive Sam Murphey asked her to write it (without disclosing to readers that Monsanto was the source), but she also apparently delivered to Monsanto a draft of her story before it was published.
---

New Monsanto documents expose cozy connection to Reuters reporter

by Gary Ruskin
US Right to Know, January 16, 2019
https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/new-documents-filed-in-federal-court-are-threatening-to-expose-reuters-updated-feb-9-2019/
[links to sources at the URL above]

We knew from previously released documents that Reuters reporter Kate Kelland was a key connection for Monsanto in its endeavor to undermine and discredit the international cancer scientists who classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen in 2015. Now we have another piece of evidence of the coziness of the connection. Not only did Kelland write the story that Monsanto asked her to write in exactly the way company executive Sam Murphey asked her to write it (without disclosing to readers that Monsanto was the source), but she also apparently delivered to Monsanto a draft of her story before it was published.

See the details within this earlier post:

New documents filed in federal court are threatening to expose Reuters news reporter Kate Kelland for acting as Monsanto’s puppet in driving a false narrative about cancer scientist Aaron Blair and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.

In 2017, Kelland authored a controversial story attributed to “court documents,” that actually appears to have been fed to her by a Monsanto executive who helpfully provided several key points the company wanted made. The documents Kelland cited were not filed in court, and not publicly available at the time she wrote her story but writing that her story was based on court documents allowed her to avoid disclosing Monsanto’s role in driving the story.

When the story came out, it portrayed cancer scientist Aaron Blair as hiding “important information” that found no links between glyphosate and cancer from IARC. Kelland wrote that Blair “said the data would have altered IARC’s analysis” even though a review of the full deposition shows that Blair did not say that.

Kelland provided no link to the documents she cited, making it impossible for readers to see for themselves how far she veered from accuracy.

The story was picked up by media outlets around the world, and promoted by Monsanto and chemical industry allies. Google advertisements were even purchased promoting the story.

Now, new information revealed in court filings indicates just how heavy Monsanto’s hand was in pushing the narrative. In a January 15 court filing, Plaintiff’s attorneys cited internal Monsanto correspondence dated April 27, 2017 showing that Monsanto executive Sam Murphey sent the desired narrative to Kelland with a slide deck of talking points and portions of the Blair deposition that was not filed in court. The attorneys said the correspondence shows the Monsanto executive asking her to publish an article accusing Dr. Blair of deceiving IARC.

Monsanto and Bayer lawyers have tried to keep the correspondence with Kelland sealed from public view, and some of the emails between the Reuters reporter and Monsanto still have not been released.

Plaintiff’s attorneys also write in their letter brief that Monsanto’s internal documents show Kelland was seen as a a key media contact in their efforts to discredit IARC.

There is nothing inherently wrong in receiving story suggestions that benefit companies from the companies themselves. It happens all the time. But reporters must be diligent in presenting facts, not corporate propaganda.

This story was used by Monsanto to attack IARC on multiple fronts, including an effort by Monsanto to get Congress to strip funding from IARC.

Reuters “ethics editor” Alix Freedman has defended Kelland’s work and declined to issue a clarification or correction to Kelland’s work despite the evidence of Monsanto’s involvement and the lack of disclosure of that involvement to readers. “We are proud of it and stand behind it,” Freedman said in an email.

Reuters editor Mike Williams said, “It was a great piece, and I stand by it fully.”

At the very least, Kelland should have been honest with readers and acknowledged that Monsanto was her source. Reuters owes the world – and IARC – an apology.

For more background on this topic, see this article.