Pfizer Board Member James “Jim” Smith Also Chairs Reuters Charity That Helps "Bolster the Resilience of Independent Media.”

Can we just stop pretending there’s any daylight between Big Pharma and legacy media?

7 minute read

In yet another sign you can’t always believe the medical literature, journalist Maryanne Demasi reported a couple weeks back that a medical journal retracted a study critical of COVID vaccines because a Reuters fact check didn’t like it. Funny thing is, Reuters fact checkers never seems to like studies or commentators critiquing COVID vaccines, and always seeks to knock them down.

At least that’s what I reported back in March when I uncovered several fake Reuters fact checks that made scientifically false statements during the pandemic about COVID vaccines. When I asked their reporter at the time if they were going to go back and fix several “fact checks” that reported facts that were scientifically false, they didn’t respond.

Reuters is one of the largest newsrooms on the planet. And it’s not just that Reuters fact checkers constantly defend COVID vaccines, attacking any social media comment or published research that might harm the bottom line of Pfizer or other manufacturers, but they also have ignored several times when Pfizer itself put out false COVID vaccine information. Last year, a British regulator accused Pfizer of “bringing discredit” on the pharmaceutical industry for illegal COVID vaccine marketing.

Here’s what the Telegraph reported:

The complaint raised concern about Pfizer’s “misuse of social media to misleadingly and illegally promote their Covid vaccine”, according to the ruling.

They claimed that such “misbehaviour” on social media was “even more widespread” than they had thought and “extended right to the top of their UK operation”.

The finding last year against Pfizer was the sixth time the British regulator reprimanded the pharmaceutical company over false promotion of their COVID vaccine, however, I can’t find a single instance of Reuters fact checkers finding fault with Pfizer. Instead, Reuters fact check works to constantly attack any criticism of the pharmaceutical giant’s COVID vaccine.

Now why is that?

When I dug around a bit, I think I figured it out: Reuters is the “news brand” for the media conglomerate Thomson Reuters, and the board chair of the company’s foundation also sits on the board of Pfizer. In fact, James “Jim” Smith joined Pfizer’s board in 2014.

That year, Pfizer put out a press statement on the election of Reuters then-CEO James “Jim” Smith to Pfizer’s board, announcing that he “will be an excellent asset to the company.”

Pfizer’s corporate governance principles detail the responsibilities of its board of directors, stating they must own shares in the company and help to monitor senior management’s performance. “Each Director is expected to serve the best interests of all shareholders and must be committed to enhancing long-term Company growth,” reads Pfizer’s governance document.

According to rules laid out by Pfizer, James “Jim” Smith’s interests equals Pfizer’s interests.

“It’s clear that Reuters is not being open and transparent with their reporting,” said Dr. Aseem Malhotra, cardiologist and medical advisor to MAHA Action. “People aren’t getting real information.”

Several Reuters fact checks and news stories have harshly criticized Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for his views and policies on vaccines, without disclosing Reuters’ ties to Pfizer. A spokesperson for Secretary Kennedy did not return a request for comment.

“We dealt with so much misinformation during the pandemic from the media,” said a senior HHS official who did not wish to be named in a story critical of Reuters journalists. “When does this ever end?”

I know this is hard to fathom, so let’s walk through it with photos.

On Reuter’s website, this guy, Jim Smith, sits on the board of the Thomson Reuters foundation and is the media giant’s former CEO.

On Pfizer’s website, Jim Smith is “James C. Smith” and sits on the board of Pfizer (along with CEO Albert Bourla and former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, one of the most ardent drug industry cheerleaders on social media).

The charitable foundation for Reuters, which Smith chairs, also puts out their own news with “our award-winning global team of journalists” reaching up to one billion readers on the Reuters newswire. “We adhere to the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles of integrity, independence and freedom from bias,” reads a statement on the charity’s webpage. The foundation also claims to “bolster the resilience of independent media.”

I sent several questions Reuters ethics editor, Alix Freedman, and cc’d Simon Robinson, executive editor of Reuters.

In a response to questions, Robinson did not seem able to explain why Reuters rarely, if ever, fact checks Pfizer for their documented false statements about their vaccines, nor did he disclose how much Pfizer pays James “Jim” Smith to be on the pharmaceutical company’s board while he also works for Reuters. Without explaining how Reuters manages this conflict, Robinson alleged that Smith’s fiduciary responsibility to Pfizer’s company growth plays no role in his responsibility to Reuters, their journalism, or the trust of readers.

“Jim Smith’s membership on the Pfizer board would not be permitted to have any effect on our coverage and in fact never has,” Robinson said in an email.

I then sent Robinson a follow-up question about Smith’s part-time work for Pfizer: “Can Reuters reporters also have part-time jobs at the corporations they cover?"

Robinson did not respond, but a Reuters spokesperson emailed back a question about my final question: “Hi Paul. Can you please explain the basis for this question?”

More on this coming….

---

Here’s the email and questions I sent Reuters:

Hello Alix,

A Reuters friend told me you'd be the person to reach out to. I've looped in Simon Robinson in case you're on vacation. I'm writing a piece about Reuters and their fact checks that constantly critique studies and commentary critical of vaccines. And I have yet to find a single Reuters Fact Check on Pfizer, even though they were reprimanded several times by their British watchdog for false promotion of the COVID vaccine.

Meanwhile, James "Jim" Smith, the chair of your charitable arm sits on Pfizer's board, a group he joined in 2014 while Reuters CEO.

1) Can you please explain why this conflict of interest between Reuters and Pfizer was allowed to occur?

2) Can you please explain why Reuters doesn't disclose this conflict of interest in their news articles? At the Washington Post, for example, they regularly disclose the conflicts of interest of Jeff Bezos in their reporting.

3) Can you point readers to the number of fact checks Reuters has done on Pfizer?

4) What steps has Reuters taken to ensure the independence of their fact checks and the work done at the Thomson Reuters Foundation from influence by Jim Smith, who has a fiduciary responsibility to Pfifzer shareholders?

5) How much is Mr. Smith compensated annually for sitting on Pfizer's board?

Thank you so much for your time.

Here’s the response I got from Simon Robinson, executive editor of Reuters:

The mission of Reuters Fact Check is to fact-check visual material and claims posted on social media. If a social media post concerns Pfizer and our team deems it newsworthy, Reuters fact-checks the post, not the company. We do not keep tallies of the number of articles on individual subjects.

As our Standards and Values state, Reuters is editorially independent and does not alter our coverage of a company, government or institution to suit Reuters’ or Thomson Reuters’ commercial interests. Jim Smith’s membership on the Pfizer board would not be permitted to have any effect on our coverage and in fact never has.

Thanks again for contacting us.