“All of Thomson Reuters will also uphold the Reuters Trust Principles of integrity, independence and freedom from bias. This commitment is more than a source of pride. It is the core of who we are,” that’s from the Reuters code of ethics.

But this week when we asked Reuters to have a look at an article that we thought might just have violated its stated commitment to integrity we were greeted with deafening and defensive… silence.

The article in question can be found here and serves as almost a retelling of the erroneous Greenpeace news release that pronounced the Alaska pollock stocks on the cusp of collapse. The stocks are not on the cusp of collapse but Greenpeace’s fundraising letters certainly would have you believe that-despite what the National Marine Fisheries Service says… they’re the folkswho did the assessment.

First we sent the editor of the article a letter, as well as the science editor and the Washington Bureau chief (you can find our letters below).

Then we waited.

Then we read the Reuters code of ethics.

Then we waited.

Then we noticed that Reuters was not above correcting itself. No not at all. In fact when they reported that passengers subdued and disarmed a highjacker, who they later in the same story report was unarmed, they corrected themselves. Or when they reported about the financial markets and a large “cash infection” they changed it to “cash injection.” Or on September 25th when their writer reported on the funeral of a Chechen warlord that didn’t happen until September 26th they admitted there were “serious problems with this story” and killed it. So, Reuters is not above correcting itself. They have done it in the past and hopefully they will do it again in this case.

We are far from alleging that Jayson Blair is at the helm of a news gathering organization that has 197 bureaus in 132 countries. But we are alleging that with 2,500 reporters worldwide one is going to fail in her judgment every once in a while- this is one of those cases.

Waiting…

NFI’s Letters to Reuters:

October 14, 2008

Robert Doherty

Washington Bureau Chief

Reuters

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Doherty,

I am writing to draw your attention to some clear violations of Reuter’s journalism standards in an article published on Friday October 10th. The report by Jasmin Melvin, was titled “Alaska pollock fishery near collapse: Greenpeace.”

In the very first paragraph Ms. Melvin reports on Greenpeace’s claims that “stocks of Alaska pollock… have shrunk 50 percent from last year to record low levels and put the world’s largest food fishery on the brink of collapse.” Unfortunately, this is an example of Ms. Melvin reporting environmental activist fundraising rhetoric almost verbatim without doing the requisite amount of research that would have revealed these statements to be patently false.

The Greenpeace press release that was clearly the impetus for her story highlights only the results of the “mid-water” pollock stock assessment and not the entire survey. Since Greenpeace began pushing this erroneous story to the media the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has explained Greenpeace’s distortion:

• While the latest survey of the mid-water pollock population in June and July showed 940,000 tons – half the 1.8 million tons counted in the 2007 survey – many of the fish stayed at ocean water levels below the mid-range and showed up in the survey of groundfish within three meters of the sea floor, Jim Ianelli, NMFS assessment scientist, told IntraFish on Thursday.

  Because ocean temperatures were cold again for the third straight year, more pollock kept closer to the ocean floor than they normally would, he said, skewing the survey results.

  “The mid-water survey is effective down to a half-meter from the bottom, but for the assessment numbers that get presented, we only go down to three meters from the bottom,” said Ianelli.

  The groundfish survey surveys the bottom, and when those numbers are calculated, estimates were 92 percent of the biomass that was expected, he said.

  “We were so remarkably close to expectations,” said Ianelli. “That is about three million tons of fish on the bottom, so if you add those two together it’s roughly four million pounds, which is the number seen in both surveys.”

  Asked if there was overfishing of Alaska pollock, Ianelli said: “Not by any measure for this upcoming season.”

In the 11th paragraph Ms. Melvin quotes John Hocevar from Greenpeace as saying, “we are on the cusp of one of the largest fishery collapses in history.” This statement, which goes unchallenged in her reporting, has simply no basis in fact and quickly became the cornerstone of a Greenpeace fundraising campaign that kicked off on the same day Ms. Melvin’s story was published.

Despite an apparent quote from a NMFS biologist there is no evidence at all that Ms. Melvin researched the claims made by Greenpeace. Had she in fact spoken to NMFS officials who conducted the survey – or to a member of the seafood community via the National Fisheries Institute – she would have quickly realized that the Greenpeace claims were quite literally telling only half the story and that Reuters was being used as a fundraising tool.

We ask that you investigate these violations and publish a new article explaining the real facts behind both the Greenpeace claims and the status of the Alaska pollock stock.

Thank you for taking the time to review and address these concerns.

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc: Marguerita Choy

Reuters

Maggie Fox

Reuters Science Editor

—————————————————————————–

October 16, 2008

Howard Goller

Editor

Reuters

VIA Email

Dear Mr. Goller,

I am writing to you after having attempted to contact Robert Doherty- Washington Bureau chief, Marguerita Choy- listed as the editor of the article in question and Maggie Fox- Reuters Science Editor.

I wrote to them in order to draw their attention to some clear violations of Reuter’s journalism standards in an article published on Friday October 10th, but have not heard back. The article I am concerned about was written by Jasmin Melvin and was titled “Alaska pollock fishery near collapse: Greenpeace.”

In the very first paragraph Ms. Melvin reports on Greenpeace’s claims that “stocks of Alaska pollock… have shrunk 50 percent from last year to record low levels and put the world’s largest food fishery on the brink of collapse.” Unfortunately, this is an example of Ms. Melvin reporting environmental activist fundraising rhetoric almost verbatim without doing the requisite amount of research that would have revealed these statements to be patently false.

The Greenpeace press release that was clearly the impetus for her story highlights only the results of the “mid-water” pollock stock assessment and not the entire survey. Since Greenpeace began pushing this erroneous story to the media the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has explained Greenpeace’s distortion:

• While the latest survey of the mid-water pollock population in June and July showed 940,000 tons – half the 1.8 million tons counted in the 2007 survey – many of the fish stayed at ocean water levels below the mid-range and showed up in the survey of groundfish within three meters of the sea floor, Jim Ianelli, NMFS assessment scientist, told IntraFish on Thursday.

  Because ocean temperatures were cold again for the third straight year, more pollock kept closer to the ocean floor than they normally would, he said, skewing the survey results.

  “The mid-water survey is effective down to a half-meter from the bottom, but for the assessment numbers that get presented, we only go down to three meters from the bottom,” said Ianelli.

  The groundfish survey surveys the bottom, and when those numbers are calculated, estimates were 92 percent of the biomass that was expected, he said.

  “We were so remarkably close to expectations,” said Ianelli. “That is about three million tons of fish on the bottom, so if you add those two together it’s roughly four million pounds, which is the number seen in both surveys.”

  Asked if there was overfishing of Alaska pollock, Ianelli said: “Not by any measure for this upcoming season.”

In the 11th paragraph Ms. Melvin quotes John Hocevar from Greenpeace as saying, “we are on the cusp of one of the largest fishery collapses in history.” This statement, which goes unchallenged in her reporting, has simply no basis in fact and quickly became the cornerstone of a Greenpeace fundraising campaign that kicked off on the same day Ms. Melvin’s story was published.

Despite an apparent quote from a NMFS biologist there is no evidence at all that Ms. Melvin researched the claims made by Greenpeace. Had she in fact spoken to NMFS officials who conducted the survey – or to a member of the seafood community via the National Fisheries Institute – she would have quickly realized that the Greenpeace claims were quite literally telling only half the story and that Reuters was being used as a fundraising tool.

We ask that you investigate these violations and publish a new article explaining the real facts behind both the Greenpeace claims and the status of the Alaska pollock stock.

Thank you for taking the time to review and address these concerns.

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute