UPDATE: We reply to InsideClimate's reporter about their refusal to address their conflict of interest and explain for the record why we're standing up to Greenpeace.
In late June of this year we received word from a friendly contact that the publication InsideClimate News was making inquiries for a forthcoming article on our litigation. We were surprised to hear that since no one from the publication had reached out to us. Ethical journalists will typically try to give the subjects of their reporting ample time to provide input or reaction, especially if the reporting is not under pressure from breaking news. When reporters instead wait until the last minute to ask for response, it’s often a sign of intentionally slanted journalism.
There was also another, even more troubling factor. Reports in a variety of credible publications including Columbia Journalism Review indicate that the publisher and senior editor of InsideClimate, David Sassoon, has worked as a paid communications consultant to Greenpeace. How could InsideClimate possibly cover our lawsuit against Greenpeace even-handedly when its top editor has been working for Greenpeace? Did Greenpeace ask InsideClimate to pursue this reporting about us? Why was InsideClimate pursuing the reporting in such a surreptitious way? These are obvious and good faith questions that any serious news organization should answer candidly.
That’s why, on June 29th, we sent an email to the reporter, Nicholas Kusnetz, to ask for an explanation about his intentions and especially on how InsideClimate could justify the apparent relationship with Greenpeace. Again, to our surprise, he offered no substantive reply, would not confirm that any reporting was in progress, and utterly ignored our questions about the conflict of interest.
Then, on August 23rd, Mr. Kusnetz emailed to request an interview with our CEO. Our pending questions about the Greenpeace connection were again entirely disregarded. Mr. Kusnetz instead presented us with a series of questions about the litigation, as if any relationship his publication has with Greenpeace is irrelevant.
In the spirit of transparency and to shine a light on the highly questionable methods of InsideClimate, we will be presenting here our interactions with the publication so that readers and the public can see it unfold and come to their own, fully informed conclusions. Below is the referenced email interaction we have had with InsideClimate, and we will update this post as events warrant.
_
UPDATE 8/30/17:
From: Seth Kursman
Subject: Re: Fw: Resolute Forest Products
Date: August 28, 2017 at 2:15:46 PM EDT
To: Nicholas Kusnetz <[email protected]>
Nicholas, I am writing to provide comments on behalf of Resolute.
I feel compelled to begin by expressing my continued disappointment in your willingness, or better stated as lack thereof, to address my questions and concerns about a possible conflict of interest on behalf of your publication. I have done so repeatedly, and my questions appear to be utterly ignored. Reports in a variety of credible publications, including Columbia Journalism Review, indicate that the publisher and senior editor of InsideClimate, David Sassoon, has worked as a paid communications consultant to Greenpeace. How could InsideClimate possibly cover our lawsuit against Greenpeace even-handedly when its top editor has been working for Greenpeace? Did Greenpeace ask InsideClimate to pursue this reporting about us? Why is InsideClimate pursuing the reporting in such a surreptitious way? These are obvious and good faith questions that any serious news organization should answer candidly. That's why on June 29th, I sent an email to you asking for an explanation about your intentions and especially on how InsideClimate could justify the apparent relationship with Greenpeace. Again to my surprise, you offered no substantive reply, would not confirm that any reporting was in progress, and utterly ignored my questions about a possible conflict of interest. Then, on August 23rd, you emailed to request an interview with our CEO. Our pending questions about the Greenpeace connection were again entirely disregarded, despite a direct reminder. Instead, you presented us with a series of questions about the litigation, as if any relationship your publication has with Greenpeace is irrelevant.
Resolute has been facing a cycle of abuse by Greenpeace and its cohorts. The cycle works like this: use misleading campaigns, vague demands, constantly moving goalposts and an utter lack of scientific grounding - all while using "heated rhetoric" to induce donations. Companies under siege with such tactics are faced with a choice: capitulate or have your brand identity trashed with smears and false claims. Greenpeace is among the most egregious of such bad actors. And when they targeted Resolute, we decided to draw the line, unapologetically and forcefully defending our integrity.
And our RICO complaint extends far beyond mere speech, including, among other things, illegal cyber-attacks, fabrication of evidence, and misappropriation of confidential customer information.
Everything Resolute makes relies on one of the world's most renewable natural resources: trees. Resolute is a sustainability leader within the forest products industry. Yet despite the many North American and global awards and recognition received, Resolute has been at the center of a cynical, multi-year attack campaign by large, well-funded activist organizations led by Greenpeace and its allies. Over the course of this long, misleading campaign against our company, Greenpeace and its cohorts have insisted their claims were science-based and factual. But as tends to happen with bullies, when we pushed back and forced them to back up their claims in response to a federal RICO lawsuit, they changed their tune.
After years of claiming Resolute "destroyed forests," for instance, Greenpeace and its partners now admit in court filings that this accusation is "figurative rather than literal." And Resolute is not causing a "caribou death spiral and extinction." This was quite simply "non-actionable rhetorical hyperbole." The list of allegations goes on, passed off to the public as fact, that they now acknowledge to be "non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion." Seems Greenpeace and their allies are resorting to rhetorical contortions to explain their sudden reversals, including claiming the mantle of free speech martyrs. But it's unlikely to work. You see, Nicolas, false statements knowingly made without any basis in fact are not free speech in a court of law or public opinion. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has long-held that calculated falsehoods, including statements based on fabricated evidence, such as the statements Greenpeace and their cohorts advance about Resolute's forestry practices, are not protected by the First Amendment.
We certainly believe in an open, transparent discourse. But it's quite another thing altogether when we are brazenly threatened, as well as our customers, with a nebulous list of imagined crimes that have no measurable, accountable connection to reality.
Far too many executives deal with activists by appeasement and accommodation, to avoid any hint of controversy. Never mind that irresponsible activists are making up facts or acting for unprincipled and self-serving motives. But for Resolute, there's no substitute for doing the right thing. We have an obligation not only to our shareholders, but to our employees, the host communities in which we operate, and our First Nations and other business partners. Not to condemn the irresponsible and illegal activity of Greenpeace and their partners would be to condone it, and that would certainly not be good corporate governance. That's why Resolute hired the Kasowitz firm based on their expertise on RICO matters and their top-notch reputation. Our company, our employees, and our partners deserve nothing less than the best legal counsel to support them.
In terms of new RICO actions against Greenpeace: If other companies are now willing to stand up to unlawful and irresponsible actions, then we say good for them; it's about time.
Finally, I encourage you to check your facts on FSC, and more broadly, certification. Resolute is the largest holder of SFI certification, and among the very largest with FSC certification in all of North America.
Seth Kursman
Vice President, Corporate Communications, Sustainability & Government Affairs
Resolute Forest Products
_
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Seth Kursman wrote:
You can email me your questions and I will respond either by phone or in writing. However, you still have not responded to my initial set of concerns. I am especially concerned if you refuse to explain what appears to be a manifest conflict of interest? It's my understanding that your chief editor and publisher has apparently been a paid consultant and public relations advisor to Greenpeace, which is a defendant in the litigation that you propose to report about. If this is so, how then can we possibly expect any sort of objective treatment in the reporting? That's a good faith question and I think we deserve a forthright reply before we consider granting any sort of interview. Also, what is the timing of your story?
Seth Kursman
Vice President, Corporate Communications, Sustainability & Government Affairs
_
From: Nicholas Kusnetz <[email protected]>
To: Seth Kursman
Date: 08/25/2017 01:55 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Resolute Forest Products
Seth,
I do have several questions for this. Can we speak by phone sometime, or should I email them?
Thanks
Nicholas Kusnetz
Reporter
InsideClimate News
_
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Seth Kursman wrote:
Nick, I didn't hear back from you. Will you be following up with me?
_
From: Seth Kursman/EXEC/MTL/CSC
To: Nicholas Kusnetz <[email protected]>
Date: 08/23/2017 02:57 PM
Subject: Re: Resolute Forest Products
Sorry Nick, I pressed "send" a bit too soon. I would also appreciate responses to the questions I posed, which you did not address in your email today.
_
From: Seth Kursman/EXEC/MTL/CSC
To: Nicholas Kusnetz <[email protected]>,
Date: 08/23/2017 02:55 PM
Subject: Re: Resolute Forest Products
I will be your contact for an interview. I am actively engaged in this file and do the interviews with rare exceptions.
Seth Kursman
Vice President, Corporate Communications, Sustainability & Government Affairs
_
From: Nicholas Kusnetz <[email protected]>
To: Seth Kursman
Date: 08/23/2017 02:13 PM
Subject: Re: Resolute Forest Products
Seth,
I am looking into this now and would like to speak with someone at the company, ideally Richard Garneau. I'm available and flexible this week or early next week.
Thanks,
Nick
Nicholas Kusnetz
Reporter
InsideClimate News
_
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Nicholas Kusnetz <[email protected]> wrote:
Seth,
Thanks for your email. If we need to be in touch, I know who to call.
Thanks,
Nick
Nicholas Kusnetz
Reporter
InsideClimate News
_
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Seth Kursman wrote:
Nicholas:
It has come to our attention that you are working on a piece for InsideClimate about our company’s litigation against Greenpeace. I was surprised to know that since we haven’t heard from you but if you could please confirm and let me know the status and direction of your reporting, I would appreciate it.
Our company works hard to be fully responsive to any media requests but I also have a few concerns I’m hoping you can address for us in advance.
First, is it true that your boss and publisher, David Sassoon, has been a paid consultant on policy and public relations to Greenpeace? There appear to be several reports indicating that, including in Columbia Journalism Review. If this is true, how much was he paid by Greenpeace, and is he still operating his professional consulting firm for environmental NGOs?
Also, a review of your reportage shows an extensive list of articles casting various activist campaigns in a highly favorable light, particularly when they are aiming at natural resources companies. The same could be said of InsideClimate as a whole. In light of that apparently biased perspective, how can we be assured that your reporting on Resolute will be objective and even handed?
Look forward to your thoughts.
Thanks, Seth Kursman
Seth Kursman
Vice President, Corporate Communications, Sustainability & Government Affairs