From the above, it would appear that the central factual claim trumpeted in the headline and lead of the original story is false. Is this not the sort of thing that calls for a correction?
Note: I have no quarrel with the decision to run a story looking at who might stand to benefit from Keystone XL. If the Kochs stand to benefit, and if Koch-funded groups support the pipeline, that’s potentially newsworthy (though I would hope we could evaluate Keystone XL on the merits). The issue here is simply whether a central fact of this story was correct.
DISCLOSURE: Some readers have asked about my “connections” to the Kochs. Over the years, I have spoken at various programs sponsored by the Charles Koch Foundation, for which I received modest honoraria. I even spoke at Koch Industries once over a decade ago. I assume I was paid for my time, but I honestly can’t recall. I have also solicited and received grants for projects from the Charles Koch Foundation, the most recent of which funded this 2009 roundtable (but for which I received no compensation). I was also quite critical of the Kochs in their dispute with the Cato Institute.

