|
|
|
Children, don't try this at home .
Here's my email exchange with Richard Ruelas. See how many
references you can find to my "amateur" status. And
then notice the "Dan Rather defense". My comments are
in black, his are in blue. My snide comments are in red
Richard,
This blog entry on Constantine may interest you.
I'm interested in
your take on this because you are a seasoned reporter and because you
wrote
about Constantin during his troubles last summer.
Here's the link to my full post.
http://www.espressopundit.com/
It appears that Robbie Sherwood wrote that Constantin was under
investigation by the AG without verifying it. It also appears that
there
may not have been an investigation after all.
And the famous lawsuit by the Maricopa County Republican party, was
dropped
and the party apologized. The apology has never run in the Republic,
even
though there were a handful of articles about the suit. Although some
would
argue that the leadership change at the county party precipitated the
apology, that's for reader to decide. The point is, that the suit was
resolved when the party filed a court document that read in part:
"Maricopa County Republican Party deeply regrets and apologizes for
any and
all inconvenience, embarrassment, expense, humiliation, adverse
publicity
and other damages and harms Constantin Querard has suffered or
experienced
as a result of the filing of this action against him without the
express
approval of the Maricopa County Republican Party Committee."
Not only did the Republic ignore the apology, But on June 24-three
months
after the Party dropped the suit and issued its apology--Republic
reporter
Lesley Wright wrote "Querard, who has been criticized even by the
Republican Party for questionable campaign activities."
Richard, I thought you treated Constantin fairly during his travails,
so
I'm curious to get your take on this.
Greg:
I'm not sure how seasoned I am as a reporter. I always considered
myself
more marinated.
Nevertheless, I am absolutely certain that Robbie Sherwood verified
what he
wrote. I am absolutely certain because I work for the same
organization and
know that, unlike blogs, we have to back up what we write.
If Sherwood received that information as a tip, he would have worked
to
verify it. He also would have had to sell it to his editor who would
have
to be convinced the information was good enough to make print.
This is the classic Dan
Rather defense. "Silly blogger sitting in your pajamas Sherwood
obviously verified his work. He works for a newspaper."
I have no idea why we didn't run the apology.
perhaps bias?
You are correct that it
is
newsworthy. Not bad for an amateur in
PJs.I would give credit enough to the readers to be able to
figure
out that the party, in my opinion, dropped it because the new
leadership
was more favorable to CQ, not because the reason for the suit lost
merit.
Thanks for the note.
Good luck.
I'm sure if I showed you my tax returns, my yearly stab at amateur
accountancy, you would have comments as well.
Ouch!
Richard Ruelas
Arizona Republic
Marinated. That's a hoot. Actually, as a
blogger, I try to back up what I
write as well. And since blogging is a low trust environment, I
assume that
people will doubt what I write unless I can back it up. I usually do
so
with direct links.
In this case, I emailed Robbie to get and indication of how he
verified the
story. We exchanged several emails and his answer was quite weak in
that it
was based on circumstantial evidence and didn't have even anonymous AG
verification. He requested that I not print his responses and I
honored
that request. Of course, it appears clear in hindsight that there
wasn't an
investigation.
I posted on February 22nd that Robbie wrote that Colette Rosati said
that
abortion causes cancer. It's clear in my post that he wrote that
without
verifying it either. It's also pretty clear that she didn't say it.
I've
printed the post below.
Are you free for lunch sometime? I'm an El Portal fan.
later that day.
Richard, if you are familiar with my
blog, you will know that I often print letters and withhold the
names. I still get permission from writers who may be sensitive
about what they have sent me. I try hard not to burn people who
email me. However, you have one of the few--actually the
only--letter that defends Sherwood. Can I print it?
Greg:
I don't know why you would withhold names. Again, one of the
differences
between blogs and actual journalism.
D'oh
If you feel you need to use it, feel free. I did not send it to you
with
any requests of privacy. My permission is not required.
You got it buddy
By the way, I don't think I'm too welcome at El Portal since I wrote
about
seeing Earl Wilcox in a Yukon with Charles Keating outside the
restaurant.
Shame, because I'll miss the chorizo.
But maybe next week we can find some lunch elsewhere. Or you can bring
me
takeout
ruelas
That's right, I forgot about the El Portal
restrictions. I actually
defended Mary Rose after that piece. It's a topsy turvey world.
Since I'm
not a journalist, I always assume that people who write to me are
expecting
the same degree of privacy that they would receive from any other
business
communication. So I seek permission to reprint their emails. I'm out
of
town next week, so if you are not free later this week, we'll have to
make
it the week of the 8th. As for bringing you take out, Talton and
Sherwood
have a shoot on sight request at the front desk, so I would never make
it to
your office. Maybe Sam's cafe in the AZ center would be a good
compromise.
|
|
l
|