He's an excellent example of a left-leaning reporter indulging in an ideological fantasy rather than reporting the news. It is documented by Alex Wild in his blog Myrmecos. This is his conclusion:
Why the rancor against the PLoS study?You need to go read the whole article to understand just what this left wing ideologue did to distort fact to "sell" her anti-pesticide industry viewpoint.
Environmental activists bringing the good fight against polluters thought they’d received a godsend in colony collapse: evil corporations harming the industrious honey bees. As such, bees are useful pawns. For winning public opinion, they are unbeatable: cute, productive, and responsible for our food. The result is an awful lot of people- especially people who don’t know much about bees- wanting CCD to be a pesticide problem. Wanting it so bad that when evidence for an alternate hypothesis emerges, they ignore it and attack the authors.
Now, I hates me an evil corporation as much as the next guy. I even lost some bees to pesticides this summer. But evidence is evidence. Writing vicious character attacks against scientists when the data don’t fit one’s inner narrative isn’t, in the long run, going to help either bees or beekeepers.
I expect right wingers to show no regard for truth. My prejudice has been that the left is more circumspect and honest because they are deeply aware of the lies from the right. But the above proves the exception. Some on the left are just as vicious as the right. (Oh... I guess I should say it isn't a surprise if you count communists as "leftists". They retailed lies throughout their career. They killed tens of millions for their ideological lies. They were certainly as bad as any mass murderer on the right. So I should tone down my naive fantasy that the left respects truth more than the right.)