The following is an email that Adam Garrie sent to Rappler after an apparent employee at Rappler finally used the appropriate channels to get in touch with him after Rappler had already published a defamatory piece consisting of untruths regarding Adam Garrie’s alleged associations with individuals, organisations and governments with whom he has no association.
In Rappler’s email, the individual in question admitted that they based their defamatory report on a so-called research paper by a group called New Knowledge. The New Knowledge paper does not mention Mr. Garrie by name but cites a poorly drawn chart which mentions his name once in reference to individuals and organisations which he had never had any relationship with, except for two which he had a short term and long since terminated relationship with (as Garrie addresses in his own email). In any case, the inaccurate chart does not prove any of the lies told by Rappler to correspond with anything remotely related to the truth.
Rappler’s employee then asked Mr. Garrie to offer a general response to the defamatory statements even though he did so previously, as was acknowledged by Rappler themselves in a subsequent update to the original defamatory piece.
Rappler’s employee also offers a bizarre theory on Russia-Philippine relations which Garrie thoroughly dissects in the following email presented in its entirety, but for redactions of certain names and monetary figures.
I can confirm that prior to my reading of the Rappler article in question, that I was not aware of the New Knowledge report, most of which deals with American politics and Russia’s alleged interest in American politics.
My general comments are that any and all allegations which state that I have any connection to the Russian government or private companies with close and verifiable links to the Russian government are categorically false and given the current geopolitical climate are self-evidently defamatory and seriously damaging to my career, reputation, personal safety and the safety of my friends and family.
As for the specifics, [I] have already responded but shall copy my previously published point-by-point response:
‘1. Rappler suggests I am connected to a Russian based company called ‘Internet Research Agency’. First of all, I know nothing about such an agency, although I have heard the name in association with stories about supporters of Donald Trump. I have never worked for such an agency and to my knowledge have never spoken to anyone from such an agency.
2. Rappler then suggests that I am somehow connected to an organisation called “GI Analytics”. I have never heard of such a company, let alone ever worked with or for them.
3. Rappler suggests I have written for the website “Russia Insider”. This is false, I believe that WITHOUT MY PERMISSION Russia Insider re-published some of my writings and although I’m not happy about that (as I believe Russia Insider to be a very poor publication), it’s not that big a deal.
4. Rappler suggests I have written for Mint Press News. This is false. I am aware that Mint Press News has published some of my work originally published elsewhere as once someone connected with Mint Press asked my permission to do so. Because I was asked politely, I granted their permission.
5. Rappler says I’m a “contributor” at globalresearch.ca, geopolitica.ru, and eurasianaffairs.net. First of all, whilst I used to have original works published at globalresearch.ca and geopolitica.ru (without receiving any payment), I do not anymore, even though I have no problem with either website. Secondly, I have never heard of eurasianaffairs.net, but I assume this website published some of my pre-existing material without asking.
5. Rappler says I have “connections to Russia” and by that I assume they mean the Russian government. This is false. Although I used to get lots of calls to appear on Russia Today (aka RT), those calls started to dry up well over a year ago, although I was recently on a show produced by the Associated Press (an American company) that airs on RT. For the record, I have no particular problem with RT, but it seems that someone at RT has a problem with me. I don’t particularly care though.
Also for the record, I support the Russian opposition and not the government as I believe the Russian government is deeply flawed….maybe that’s why RT don’t like me anymore. Rappler should catch up.
6. Rappler seems to think it’s a problem that I have been interviewed multiple times by Iran’s Press TV. I’m not sure why they feel this way as The Philippines has no disputes with Iran, but for the record, Press-TV has never censored my interviews and that’s the only thing I consider before agreeing to an interview anywhere.
7. Rappler’s recent article says that I am a contributor at Eurasia Future. This is false, I am the director at Eurasia Future, something that a previous Rappler piece about me correctly reported’.
As for the Oriental Review, I used to occasionally contribute pieces for a small fee, whilst in respect of The Duran, I once contributed pieces free of charge and later took a small [REDACTED] monthly stipend. However, I later quit working for them because I found their editorial policy to not only be at odds with my personal views, but I found their meddlesome editorial policy to be thoroughly distasteful and even extreme. As I centrist I could not bear the views of not all but most of the others who were published in that particular outlet. I also became supremely miserable with the intolerable working environment there.
It would be helpful for you to acknowledge that the New Knowledge report did not mention my name directly but instead shared a very blurred chart with my name on it. The chart implied that I was associated with people and organisations that I have never been associated with, whilst only one man on that chart, [REDACTED], have I ever met. I have not had any contact with him since around late 2017. I in fact have written him an email regarding the severance of my relations with the organisation he is involved in subsequent to my acrimonious departure but received no reply.
As for websites that I have no association with or have never heard of republishing my work, whilst I prefer that I am asked permission by those seeking to republish my work, I have a policy not to take action against those who re-publish my work unless they edit it or otherwise present it in a way which internationally misrepresents the views expressed in the original piece of which I am the legal copyright owner.
I also disagree with your interpretation of Russo-Philippine relations. Whilst it is true that President Duterte has improved bilateral relations from a point of having few meaningful relations prior to Duterte, to that of a fledgling partnership that mainly involves national defence and related projects, this is hardly significant enough to foster a change (positive or negative) in general Philippine attitudes towards Russia or Russian attitudes towards The Philippines.
But whilst I disagree with your interpretation of recent developments in the aforementioned geopolitical developments, I am appalled by the defamatory insinuation that you have made which implies that pro-Duterte media outlets have re-published my commentary because of “connections to Russia” which I do not have and can easily prove that I do not have in a court of law.
When President Duterte spoke of shaking off the colonial mentality, this is what he meant. It is nothing short of condescending to imply that Filipino website managers and social media activists only share content from foreigners because they want to ingratiate themselves to these foreigners. The truth is that like those in many nations, Filipinos have minds of their own and are naturally attracted to content which speaks to issues close to their hearts and minds. Clearly, my content does just that, otherwise Rappler (which obviously is anti-Duterte and have the full right to be so) would not be so fixated with the fact that a non-Filipino like me loves The Philippines, loves President Duterte and is loved by many intelligent, kind hearted and patriotic Filipinos.
You are perfectly entitled to hold different views and I maintain my offer to engage in a videoed debate on such issues with someone who has an opposing viewpoint. I believe this is what makes our world a better place.
However, because my reputation has been defamed by the lies you have printed, I would ask that you retract the lies, issue me a personal apology and donate a small amount to a Philippines based charity of my choosing.