Most Read: Opinions

direct signup

Join a Discussion

There are no discussions scheduled today.

Weekly schedule, past shows

Erik Wemple
On Twitter E-mail |  On Twitter Follow |  On Facebook Fan |  RSS RSS Feed
Posted at 12:20 PM ET, 07/13/2012 and A strange relationship has cornered the market for judging media outlets. Plagiarism, glaring factual error, conflict of interest, ownership of falling-bear-related photos — the site must be on the right-thinking side of every journalism fracas.

This role as media ref triggers a Sunday-school sensibility when it comes to the stuff that appears on, as one of its advertisers,, has learned. Troopers along the ideo-media highway are familiar with, which rebuts assertions in the media about Koch Industries Inc. and David and Charles Koch, strong backers of conservative causes in the United States.

“The purpose of the site is to present the facts and set the record straight in our voice since many times what is reported about us is false, misleading, or distorted,” says Melissa Cohlmia, corporate communication director at Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC. Recent posts, for instance, have criticized an Obama campaign aide for remarks made about the Koch brothers as well as a “Democratic political operative” for “tired and debunked” allegations about Koch.

Both sides seem happy with the business relationship. enjoys the revenue and enjoys the exposure. Cohlmia says click-through rates are good: “We are told our ads outperform other ads on the site by about three-to-one,” she says.

And if only would give a bit more leash in articulating its ad lines, that rate might even spike. Julie Moos, director of Poynter Online, reports that three times in the half-year relationship with, the site has had to reject ads and ask for rewording.

At first Moos declined to provide details on’s ad-oriented disagreements with But then provided such details; Poynter disputed such details. E-mails started flying like falsehoods on cable TV. After a great deal of back and forth, the Erik Wemple Blog is confident in reporting that Poynter and have fussed over the following ads:

Ad Fuss No. 1: On April 11, according to Moos, proposed an ad promoting a post rebutting remarks that analyst Karen Finney had made on MSNBC about Koch in relation to the Trayvon Martin case. The Koch people characterized the analyst’s comments as “false and wholly fabricated.”

So sent an ad to titled as follows: “Dishonesty from Karen Finney: Maliciously false reporting from political operatives at MSNBC.”

No dice! ruled Moos, who objects to “language that is subjective and difficult to confirm.” Good call.

Ad Fuss No. 2: Just a day later, says, requested an ad change. The Before: “Koch Responds to MSNBC’s Claims.” The After: “Koch Responds to MSNBC.” Now there’s something — was standing firmly against the inclusion of the word “claims” in an ad. A directive from the site to read in part, “We can OK this version if you can delete ‘claims.’ Ad would read Koch Responds to MSNBC.”

Picayunism of that stature can’t possibly be explained or excused, and Moos makes no effort in that direction:

We do have two versions of that ad, but we can’t find any emails from me or to them about what we wanted changed or why. If we did, indeed, ask them to drop “claims” I think that was a mistake on my part.

*Ad Fuss No. 3: On June 25, asked for the following change. The Before: “Koch Responds to Attacks from NYT Editor.” The After: “Koch Responds to Claims from NYT Editor.” Upshot: One moment, “claims” is a bad word, next it’s fine.

Claims, attacks, whatevers. In the media-political world, they’re the same thing. Let the Kochs speak,! Says Cohlmia about the tweaks: “Although we had mocked up ads internally that used the phrase ‘Koch confronts,’ we shelved those since Poynter has been a stickler on any kind of active characterizations or adjectives.”

Moos puts her own eyes to the site’s ads, which bring in about a half-million dollars per year. (That figure encompasses display ads plus job listings plus some book-selling sponsorship revenue). She takes a case-by-case approach to ad copy and doesn’t hesitate to seek edits. “Some of it is resources and some of it is what can be verified,” she says, outlining internal considerations in examining ads. More Moos:

We appreciate that KochFacts and all our advertisers are committed to reaching our readers in ways that respect our principles and guidelines, which include making claims in ad copy that we can verify as accurate using minimal resources (e.g. “X responds to Y”). We devote far more resources to ensuring that our editorial content is accurate (e.g. “CNN, Fox err in covering Supreme Court Health Care ruling”) and that it conforms to our principles and guidelines for publishing.

Those principles and guidelines, too, place Poynter in an elite category. “None of the three other media-criticism sites — MediaBistro, Columbia Journalism Review, and Jim Romenesko, has raised any concerns with us,” writes Koch’s Cohlmia via e-mail.

By  |  12:20 PM ET, 07/13/2012

Read what others are saying

    © 2011 The Washington Post Company