[delhanty]

So I read this story and wondered whether there were any undisclosed links between the author (Kate Kelland) and Monsanto.

Google led me to sites alleging that this 2017 article and others were written to spec on the instructions of Monsanto. [0][1][2]

>Not only did Kelland write a 2017 story that Monsanto asked her to write in exactly the way Monsanto executive Sam Murphey asked her to write it, (without disclosing to readers that Monsanto was the source,) but now we see evidence that a draft of a separate story Kelland did about glyphosate was delivered to Monsanto before it was published, a practice typically frowned on by news outlets.

[0] https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/new-monsanto...

[1] https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18746-monsanto-fed-r...

[2] https://twitter.com/careygillam/status/1121417187531677696

[singularity2001]

There should be a mechanism to reward such highly valuable meta-journalism as you provided.

Also there should be a judicial mechanism to lock up the board of Monsanto in a dark dungeon.

[ars]

This Reuters article is basically just a summary of the difference between two reports.

I'm not sure exactly how you can be biased on that, you could go read the reports yourself and do the exact same diff.

[6510]

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/kate-kelland-b5995618

[jnordwick]

This is about as close to pure ad hominem as you can get.

[tomstoms]

Try bias and conflict of interest.