The OTM's piece is really a one of the biggest examples of hypocrisy masquerading as journalism. Hey Brooke and Bob, I really didn't think you both were that silly to fall for someone like Barrett but on the other hand we all have bills to pay and NYC is expensive. Disclosure: I have been to Ecuador twice and visited the areas affected by Texaco/Ecuadorian Petroleum Co spills.
1) It is very telling that in a previous piece on Gary Webb (who by the way paid with his life for reporting that as it turned out was in essence true), Webb is being attacked by not going to CIA for confirmation/questions? How about OTM going to Donzinger and confirming the facts written by Bloomberg's hack Barrett?
2) Details in Chevron Ecuador case are so convoluted and unbelievably brazen that both sides in the case do deserve each other. Donzinger's stupidity and fault is to have a heart in right place, going overwhelmingly native and to be caught on tape. However to say what has been omitted by OTM's interview is Chevron's huge and long history of political maneuvering on Govt of Ecuador and its court that included implicit and sometimes explicit threats. It is as the economic side of Monroe Doctrine was set to be reinforced until there was a change in Ecuador Govt and then the universe of magical coordinates that always rule in US Corp favor, regardless of issues or evidence,suddenly changed. One cannot dismiss Chevron's immense political power and contacts in Washington DC political game called Foreign Policy (hello Condoleezza tanker or Nuland's famous (of infamous) Dec talk in Washington on US investment in "democratic" Ukraine (see what is she standing next to) to find out that Barrett's book is a product just like a take out pizza would. The flavor of hatchet job is just too much to be hidden by layers of cheesy pretense of objectivity and institutional façade of Potemkin Village (Bloomberg). In this case they used expired ingredient of political expediency just like in case of illegal saga of Argentine "default" by vulture funds. (BTW, it is amazing that no one is US media calls any experts in international law on this one!)
3) Bloomberg being "reliable" source for reporting on anything? You have got to be kidding. Barrett is tainted as much as institution who writes for. Just check out Jan. killing of story on China's elite wealth and connection (that by the way also hits very close to home aka JP Morgan Chase and Citibank). It is amazing that the reporter who leaked the story to FT was later fired as the team worked on it for over the year.
In other words don't believe the hype as it is definitely what it looks like: a hatchet job by a hack who's outlet has been compromised. For clues that now fall into pattern in this type of brother Grimm tales of personal assassination check out Assange, Manning, Snowden for clues.

Once again OTM takes the listeners for fools.

http://www.cjr.org/feature/bloombergs_folly.php?page=all&print=true

Another example of the fundamental problem with Liberals/Progressives-- unfortunately and to my great sadness, facts are always irrelevant-- and their prejudice is always to the core. Jim Beachboard

To whatever extent Donziger did do wrong, which I would guess were non-zero but not to the extent Chevron would have us hold, this makes no difference, but: the cynic in me wishes that your programme had investigated to what extent his actions were par for the course, and especially so as far as Chevron's own conduct in the case were concerned. Perhaps he spoke of intimidation and and the threat of humiliation from his side in an environment in which everyone around knew that Chevron were already doing the same, save with much, much, greater resources.

And, as in the San José "Mercury News" case, it would have been better to have some idea as to the actual case...for example, has anyone judged whose version of the facts of the case more closely matches reality. I realise that the show is about the mædia environment, but I think strong anchor-points in the real are even more necessary now that so many of us live in our own echo chambers and epitemic closure seems the order of the day....

This is not an independent researched book explaining the Chevron in Ecuador case, it's a pro-Chevron one-sided dump of their legal filings written to give the impression that Barrett actually researched the case. It shamelessly masquerades as “impartial” but the facts do not bear that out.

Peter Maass, author of Crude World: The Violent Twilight of Oil in his review of Barrett's book in Outside Magazine wrote, "There are two side to the story of the biggest environmental lawsuit ever, but a new book tells only one of them."

Barrett, did not interview the Ecuadorian legal team, did not read the trial record in Ecuador and spent only a few days there. Many of us who have supported the communities for decades are shocked at the lack of real reporting here. He made it appear as if he interviewed Donziger, even tho he only took from Chevron's legal filings in their bogus RICO action.

The Sierra Club, Amnesty International, Greenpeace and over 40 other human rights and environmental NGOs have condemned Chevron for its dirty underhanded legal thuggery in this case and for violating the First Amendment. Why is that not a part of Barrett's "story"?

Barrett avoids the truly scandalous and criminal examples of Chevron's tactics to hide contamination during the Ecuador trial, like swapping toxic soil samples with clean ones, and avoiding sampling at depths at which Chevron knew contamination existed, at locations Chevron knew were still contaminated, and were downgradient from known contamination. You'd think that a book purportedly covering the largest environmental litigation in history would merit a real review of the evidence, much of which was provided by even the skewed soil and water samples taken by the company.

Three layers of Ecuadorian courts – eight appellate judges – reviewed and upheld the $9 billion verdict, and threw out Chevron's claims of fraud. But for Barrett, apparently U.S. courts are the only legitimate court system in the world. Barrett lets Judge Kaplan off the hook for his colonial overreach in judging a country's legal system that he knows nothing about. Kaplan can't read the native language, nor did he read the trial record.

Worst of all, Barrett is promoting his book under the false headline that the case against Chevron in Ecuador “failed”. This is patently false as enforcement actions are underway in Canada, Argentina and Brazil (which Barrett knows). Barrett unwillingness to correct this misinformation time and again is perhaps the most obvious indication of where he stands on the “truth”.

Here is an excellent point-by-point critique of this book by the Ecuadorian legal team: http://chevrontoxico.com/assets/docs/2014-barrett-critique.pdf