What does it say about Reuters' environmental coverage when the news organization can't even get a basic “factbox” correct?

This March 31 Reuters “factbox” was supposed to explain “What is the Kyoto Protocol? [1]” Instead, the media conglomerate pushed a biased eco-agenda and omitted anything that cast a negative light on the treaty or revealed problems. There was no mention of Kyoto participants failing to meet their targets or Japan trying to renegotiate because Kyoto is harming its economy [2]. Reuters failed to report that greenhouse gas emissions are rising [3] in the European Union and in many Kyoto-participating countries, such as Canada. Some, like Austria and Great Britain, are actually doing worse [4] than the US in emissions growth. By skewing the data included in this factbox, Reuters massaged data to fit an agenda and crossed into advocacy journalism.

Reuters began by framing the US as the bad guy (all bold mine):

* SO IT IS LEGALLY BINDING?

others [5] in the [6] media [7] report that China passed the US in 2007 as the number one carbon emitter, Reuters has been reluctant to put China at the top of the list [8]. Maybe criticizing China doesn't pack the same punch as criticizing America.

Reuters used careful wording to make it seem that because of Bush, the US just suddenly “came out against the pact in 2001.” Reuters ignored that Bush's position is a continuation of Clinton/Gore administration policies and that the US is bound by the Byrd-Hagel Resolution [9]; Byrd-Hagel bars America from joining Kyoto, as currently written, because it “would result in serious harm to the economy to the United States.” It's much easier to make it seem like Bush is the only obstacle to a global environmental panacea. 

By only mentioning Bush, Reuters made it seem that only the US has issues with Kyoto, ignoring that many of the countries that did sign and ratify Kyoto are also complaining, usually about the treaty's significant economic impact. Countries are worried that enforcing targets would devastate economies while high-emitting developing nations like China, India and Brazil are exempt, giving them an advantage.

More important than what Reuters said about Kyoto was what it didn't say:

* HOW WILL IT BE ENFORCED?

they underestimated their economic growth and resulting emissions [9] as well as the major burden on taxpayers.

Again, Reuters presented a Pollyanna description without also including the problems:

* WHAT OTHER MECHANISMS ARE THERE?

Reuters was aware of this practice [10], it was one of the only media sources that initially reported it.

This isn't the impartial reporting of facts, whether negative and positive, about Kyoto; this is advocacy journalism designed to sway opinion and doesn't belong in the media. 

Lynn contributes to NewsBusters and can be emailed at tvisgoodforyou2-at-y a h o o-dot-c o m