Eichenwald, New York Magazine, and NPR Redux
I’m still out of town and busy, so for several more days there’ll be no wordy blogging.
Meanwhile, check out David France’s piece in the latest issue of New York Magazine, “Saving Justin Berry” for — finally! — some actual reporting by someone other than I, about Kurt Eichenwald (click here)
There’s a lot missing from the piece (wonder if Eichenwald’s lawyers had a hand in that?). Still, it’s a great supplement to the one I wrote several months ago for Counterpunch (click here:“The World of Justin Berry”).
The New York piece makes it clear that Eichenwald is a mad hatter and moral crusader whom the Times – because of its own issues, which need much further exploration – failed to control as a an employee with emotional (and hubrism!) problems that seriously intruded on his work and caused him to violate the ethical rules of journalism. (Earth to NPR: No, it’s not OK, ever, to write a news story that’s factually seriously flawed, about people with whom you previously had “only a personal relationship” – especially not after you’ve given them lots of money, joined and played around on their illegal child porn website, and discussed with them the possibility of making Hollywood movies.)
It’s also very clear that Eichenwald is a martinet with deep pockets. He has a history of harassing editors and publishers that predates his tirades against Salon and me. Using tons of billable attorney hours and persistent threats of a lawsuit (he even had a press release drawn up) he pressured Salon into removing my op-ed piece from its site. In response to articles he hasn’t liked — or hasn’t thought he’d like, even before they came out — he has continually threatened to sue me and venues I’ve written for. He’s been involved in libel threats and lawyer pressure against at least one other publisher, as well (see this Village Voice piece).
He’s used ad hominem, McCarthyist language to discredit me personally and professionally. His cuckoo playbook reads this way: Child Porn!!@! Justin, innocent victim of evil pervs! Kurt, good! Seriously broke the rules but who cares – rescued a “child” (age almost 19)! From Child Porn!!@! (Um, epilepsy…so sad!) Debbie says rules seriously broken. Debbie ruined good Kurt’s life! Bad Debbie! Must have secret porn agenda! Must work for evil pervo conspiracy!” This is his basic line, repeated ad hypnotium on blogs and to reporters. It’s dirty pool and it’s smart. He marginalizes my investigative work into him by making me a central part of the story. He’s knows I won’t sue because I don’t believe in suing people for what they write. He’s unprincipled and he’s a bully.
But he finds takers for his spin doctoring — see the shameful fluff produced by NPR last week and — here’s the real “sad” — Brian Lehrer’s show on WNYC. Eichenwald actually appeared there yesterday to prop himself up and trash me … with NPR’s “media reporter” David Folkenflik (see previous post) helping him out and Lehrer nodding in the background.
For more, see my earlier post below.
October 31st, 2007 at 5:29 pm
One observation. Consider the following statement:
“Viewing images of child porn is not essential when researching the issue, Eichenwald says. He described his research on Masha Allen, who he said at age 8 was adopted from a Russian orphanage by a pedophile, and whose repeated rapes were caught on film for four years. “Now, I haven’t seen any of them because they’re illegal. What I have seen are cropped versions, what I have seen are images where they have the images removed but you can see what’s happened,” he said.”
from http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3052
These “cropped versions” are rare and hard to find - there are maybe two or three on the internet. And it is far from obvious about “what’s happened” in the images. Even as Masha’s lawyer, I have not seen these images, other than those few which are publicly available online.
The time line of Masha and Justin’s story raises many questions. Masha’s “cropped images” first appeared in the media on February 2, 2005 (in Canada only). The story broke in the United States in late April 2005. After a brief but intense media frenzy, the LA Times, in a major scoop, interviewed “the Disney World Girl” and featured her story on June 18, 2005.
The reporter of the LA Times story immediately moved in to option Masha’s life rights. The Masha “story”–she is a much more compelling figure than Justin–was quickly gone lock stock and barrel. Any of Eichenwald’s research into her story including his careful consideration of her “cropped pictures,” becomes worthless. Not surprisingly, Justin goes from “personal” to “major story” weeks later in early July 2005.
The next appearance of Masha on the media scene was December 2, 2005 when ABC Primetime aired a major full-faced interview of Masha. A worldwide media frenzy started within minutes of that show, including an eventual appearance on Oprah. Justin’s story was featured by the NYTimes less than two weeks later.
Is it no coincidence that the NYTimes carries no mention of Masha Allen? Not one word. Was the Masha story suppressed in order to promote Justin? Masha testified in Congress, just like Justin. In Masha’s case a major new federal law resulted. Not so for Justin. Still no word of Masha in the NYTimes even though Eichenwald himself admits that he was researching her story. Clearly they knew about her.
Is this all just a coincidence or perhaps more media favoritism (ie., suppressing the “real news” for sensationalist pseudo-news?) Many more questions, few answers.
James R. Marsh, Esq.
October 31st, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Thank you for the clarity and the consistency of your work over the years. In not playing into, or trying to profit from, the delusional thinking and hysteria the U.S. has been under for so many years, you are an island of reason and sanity.
Your work was never more needed.
Thank you.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:39 pm
The value of your reporting on this issue lies in the fact that any kind of nuance on sexual matters at all is tragically rare. Thanks for that. As can be seen by Brian Lehrer, sex makes good reporters go bad, because the benefits of going the route of cheap sensationalism are so high and the costs of trying to be realistic and sensible are so extreme.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:06 am
Is sad that, just because you dont believe in the inocence and-or good intentions of a man… you try to destroy him….
Is irresponsible, and certainly will stop other journalists from researching the issue.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Debbie, Please consider that it is possible that you are being manipulated by men who, because of their own significant pathology, choose to have sexual relations with children rather than adults. I don’t know anything about you personally but I am assuming that you are not a parent and don’t fully understand the immaturity of most people under the age of twenty-five. Those years in ones life are about exploring the self and I suspect any adult interested in someone significantly younger (and at age 25, someone as old as 17 or 18 years is significant) is simply looking for a partner that they can manipulate and control without any consideration of the person’s best interest. I am not so interested in your disagreement with Eichenwald as I am in your reasons for being so.
Lorraine, FYI: I have two children, one 25 and the other 20. Read my past 27 years of journalism and you will see that I have never been manipulated by anyone. To understand my reasons for disagreeing with Eichenwald, please go to the “articles” section of my blog and download the piece I did about his work on Justin Berry, in Counterpunch of April 2007. That will give you a good idea about why I, as a parent, a journalist and a concerned citizen, am very concerned that media work be done with ethics and nuance — especially when it comes to issues of children and sex. DN
November 15th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
You seem to be the only person out there interested in telling the truth and/or at least making an effort to get at it.
A prostitute sells only their body.
Kurt Eichenwald has totally sold out.
Which is more ethical?
November 15th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
“Read my past 27 years of journalism and you will see that I have never been manipulated by anyone.” Eichenwald.
I need a vomit bag. He has “never been manipulated by anyone!”
Eichenwald’s “Serpent on the Rock” was a “Liar’s Poker” in reverse.
The moral of Michael Lewis’s “Liars Poker” is the little guy ends up holding the bag.
Eichenwald created a sensation with his “serpent on the Rock.” It motivated people to get rid of perfectly fine investments. The little guy owned 30 year proven reserves of oil purchased at $6 a barrel. He had interests in prime property from around the world. The majority of the Prudential direct investments were in real estate, and using 20:20 hindsight, these investments did quite well.
Prudential was willing to return the cash on the $5 billion plus dollars to the investors for two reasons. First, the money had to be repositioned, which means income, and big income at that.
If the brokers repositioned the $ 5.2 billion of direct investment money into Prudential mutual funds it could have translated into a 250+ million dollar windfall.
The second reason was how sweet it was for the people to take these “questionable” investments off the hands of the poor investors, and at a discount! These buddy-buddy boys did very well for themselves now that we can look back into history with 20:20 hindsight.
Of course Eichenwald had no clue. He had no background into business so he was an easy shill to dupe.
The guy is a fraud.
The person with 27 years of journalism experience who’s never been manipulated by anyone is the owner of this blog, “DN” — aka Debbie Nathan — not Mr. Eichenwald. But whatever: I’m putting up your comment anyhow! DN