|
RE: Confidential To
Neil |
|
--------
Original Message --------
Steve,
I'll share the blame on the web site. Our site is set up for one-person
operation with the same features flowing to the same places each week. Our
technology, unfortunately, does not link letters with the articles being
addressed; that has to be done by hand. My original thought was to ask the
webmaster to create a special link between the Sugg column and your response, so
each would have a visible link to the other. Obviously we have to have the
response to do that. When all this began, I figured we'd make the links, include
any correction, and be done. The actual course of events has been more
fragmented. We will certainly ensure that the related elements are all linked
together. You have written very good responses to the problems you see in
John's work. I think we should publish them. This is a basic dispute over
interpretation of events. John's case is that the circumstances were
misleading to people. The essence of the case you're making is that, yes you solicited contributions for your defense, yes you bought some property, and at
least a jury sided with Jane even if the case was ultimately lost -- but your
actions were open and above-board, weren't overzealous or whatever else might be stated or implied in John's presentation. On an issue like this, the best
corrective for undesirable speech is more speech -- a response to the initial
one. That's what all of us in journalism rest our careers on. We've had on the
table for a good while now the offer of space to respond. It is time for all of
us to move to something else, including John. I would dearly love to see you get
your response to Atlanta, and I'll urge Ken to make superhuman efforts to get it
into this week's paper. Then we'll make sure we have the appropriate links on
the web site. Neil -----Original
Message----- Have you had a chance to
review the emails to see if response more favorable to Jane and me is
appropriate? I'm
awaiting your response before finalizing my 500-word letter. Thanks,
Neil. Steve
Neil
Skene wrote: Steve,
I have been out today and just read your letter. To tell you the truth, I have
watched the exchanges between you and John go by as if it were a blur. I see an
enormous expenditure of energy and verbiage, which seems to keep returning to
such issues as whether the place is a "house" or a
"townhouse," and whether the fund-raising began
"immediately." >From the outset, both the editor and I have taken
the reasonable position that you will have some space to respond. We went out of
our way, probably unwisely, to give you a chance to help us understand the
nature of your concerns. And we've offered you space to respond -- more than we
typically give to a
letter-writer. An error is an error, but these are pretty
tangential to the main issues. I appreciate Tom Julin's kind appraisal.
Tom will also be the first to stick to his guns when he thinks he has a valid
case, no matter how loud the clamor against him. In this case, there's a huge
clamor, perhaps room for a more innocent interpretation of the circumstances
than the column presented (which is the opinion you'll presumably set forth in
your published letter), but you're a public figure and you asked people for
donations for your cause, and I have a hard time finding John's commentary to be
beyond the pale. I will look at the volume of emails to determine whether
I think the editor has acted unreasonably.Neil -----Original
Message----- Dear Neil, Our
mutual friend Tom Julin assures me he has the highest respect for you as a
journalist, so I can only assume you must have turned over our request for
corrections to an editor who apparently does not subscribe to the high ethical
standards applied by you and most conscientious journalists. But
back to the placement issue. You continue to allow Internet readers to
easily access the original column with easy-to-find links from the current
Fishwrapper. Wouldn’t basic fairness dictate that visitors who do link to the original column should be able to either easily see on that page or
easily link to another page where the corrections are as prominent and easy to
find as the original errors still in the column? Of course you could also simply edit the original column to incorporate the corrections instead of
continuing to publish information you know is inaccurate or misleading. We
are also extremely disappointed with the fact that what efforts have been made
have been buried. Even knowing corrections were online somewhere on your
site, neither Jane nor I could find it. At
least on the Internet, which is all I can see from here, it is buried at the
bottom of nine letters to the editor in a section called Talk of The
Town. And what’s even more unfair about this placement: even if one were to click on Talk Of The Town from your homepage, one would have to know which of
NINE separate links there would take you to the page where you could then scroll
down and hunt for these corrections. I
don’t mean to be disrespectful and I’m sure you don’t welcome any
journalistic advice from me but, please, do you and your papers not subscribe to
a basic tenant of ethical journalism that errors should be corrected with the
same general prominence as the original error? And
this isn’t just some wild idea of mine. I note that while the
Association of Alternative Newsweeklies has no Code of Ethics or published
standards members should aspire to, Article IV of the American Society of Newspaper Editors’ Statement of Principles says: “Editorials,
analytical articles and commentary should be held to the same standards of
accuracy with respect to facts as news reports. Significant errors of fact, as
well as errors of omission, should be corrected promptly and prominently.”
The
Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists also makes it clear: You
accurately corrected the fact that our fundraising did not begin immediately
upon filing our lawsuit—but you ignored clear evidence that Sugg’s
characterization of our fundraising could not be honestly characterized as “vigorous.” One mention on a website qualifies as “vigorous?” You
accurately corrected Sugg’s mis-reporting of our real estate as “a
townhouse” but instead of telling your readers he was on notice of the
inaccuracy of that information pre-publication and yet never even then bothered
to check the primary source (assessors’ records easily available on the
internet), your paper makes it appear there is still some question about the
accuracy of your columnist's report by writing “Wilson says it’s actually a
“house.” Come on Neil, do you have to go to lengths like that to
protect your guy? I sent you the record from the primary source Sugg never
consulted. It is a house, it's not just that I claim it is.
And more important, is that fair to your readers? And
that’s what little “good news” there is in your paper’s efforts to
correct the slew of errors Sugg published. We
are amazed that instead of correcting Sugg’s report that Jane and I were fired
for repeated acts of insubordination, your “clarifications” merely
characterize that as the station’s position and goes on to say Jane and I
claimed we were fired as whistleblowers. Then, instead of accurately and
honestly reporting that a jury agreed with Jane, your correctionignores that
fact and jumps to, “The station prevailed when an appeals court ruled the
state’s whistleblower statute didn’t apply.” Don’t
your readers need to know a jury heard five weeks of testimony, viewed all the
evidence, and sided with Jane before an appeals court overturned their decision
on a legal technicality which is totally unrelated to why we were fired? Your
“clarifications” also altogether ignored Sugg’s assertion, printed as
fact, that our legal exposure of $3 million is “a gross exaggeration.”
We clearly documented it is not. Any competent, independent lawyer would
confirm that. Do your readers not deserve to know that the assertion you
published as fact is, indeed, incorrect? And
especially troubling: your clarifications also completely ignore Sugg’s
grossly inadequate and unfair summarization of our response to his clear
implications that we misappropriated funds donated for legal expenses.
Back to that ASNE Statement of Principals for a moment, do you and your papers
not subscribe to the journalistic principle that: “Every
effort must be made to assure that the news content is accurate, free from bias
and in context, and that all sides are presented fairly.” Wouldn’t
you agree that Sugg’s summarization of our responses to serious allegations
and implications by merely reporting “Wilson last week refused to disclose any
accounting of the money he collected for the lawsuit,” is far froman honest
and fair report or interpretation of the response we actually provided? You
don’t think our statement that we have painstakingly kept our promise to spend
donated funds only for legal fees and our offer to provide a full accounting to
any donor of date should have been included in a fair report of how we responded
when confronted with year-old real estate records? Again,
from the SPJ Code of Ethics: “Give
voice to the voiceless…” Do
you not fail to provide us a voice when you allow your columnist to ignore the
statements we provide by not using even a single quote from us? Does that
kind of journalistic misconduct, apparently condoned by your editor, not lead
the reader to believe we had no real response? And
I won’t even get into the convoluted details about Sugg’s false
characterizations of the “reasonable belief” issue at trial, or the actual
basis of what we decried as lies in the reports we were pressured to broadcast. In
closing, we do appreciate your paper’s offer of 500 words. Please advise
the deadline for that response to be included in your next issue. But
meanwhile, I again appeal to you personally to assure the corrections we have
requested are made fully and fairly. You can and should act immediately to
assure whatever you publish in response to the material we sent is given
reasonably the same prominence as the errors in the column you continue to
publish on your website. Thank
you again for your time and consideration. I look forward to your
response. Steve
Wilson |