Daniel Okrent publishes names of e-mailers

[realFedUp]

from atrios: on Daniel Okrent's column today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/weekinreview/10bott.html?pagewanted=print

Not For Publication

Kudos to the Nyt's Okrent for violating the privacy of a reader. That really seems like an appropriate role for the ombudsman of a newspaper -- posting up the names of people who have sent private emails to journalists. Nice job, Okrent! Looking out for your readers! 10 points team leader! We'll have to consider the new standard for privacy that you've set.

I'm an irresponsible blogger. I've received a lot of hate mail in my time. I've also been on the receiving end of serious obscenity-laden spam attacks on my comments. I've known the name/address/phone number/email of some of those attackers and I've never posted them. Why? Because it's an unfair fight. I appreciate the right of people to express their grievances without fear of retribution. With great power comes great responsibility, as a wise man once said.

My circulation is small relative to that of the paper of record. Nonetheless, they've decided it's appropriate to intimidate readers who react critically, something I've never done to people who otherwise don't have a public profile.

The reporter who has received angry email is Adam Nagourney. The reporter who feels that he, with a circulation of about a million, cannot handle criticism without attempts to damage his critic is Adam Nagourney.

continued

[realFedUp]

1. I'd say a line was crossed here....

what's your say?

[Steelangel]

2. That's why I never use my real name when I send any comments to

any editors.

[realFedUp]

3. Maybe if Adam Nagourney wasn't such a whore for Bush

[annabanana]

4. yup...line crossed... So What's Nagourney's phone number,

address and name of his kid's school? (not serious, trying to make point)

DISgusting.

[realFedUp]

5. kick

[realFedUp]

6. E-mail from one named e-mailer...

Thanks to Roger Ailes blogsite (the good Roger)

Someone who appears to be the real Steve Schwenk responds to Okrent here, with intelligence and courage:

When I wrote that e-mail to Mr. Nagourney, I was complaining about his sloppy reporting. And I was pointing out that it was because of such sloppy reporting (as the NYT has admitted in its mea culpa in May) that 1000 US tropps died in a war that likely never should have happened.

Now I know it is impossible to tell that from Okrent's piece. He has portrayed me falsely. He clipped the most inflammatory statement in the exchange, and falsely portrayed me in the worst light possible.

And not only that, Mr. Okrent called me a "coward." He printed that, not in an e-mail he sent just to me, but in the New York Times. And he refused to allow me even one word in my own defense. My private e-mail went to one person. The Nagourney-Okrent smear of my name went out to millions of people.

I admit that my choice of words was wrong; it was a mistake, I was angry, but my point was not malicious. I was angry at 1000+ dead in a war that never should have happened, and likely never would have happened, had the Times and other media done their job.

But I caused Mr. Nagourney no harm in sending him that e-mail, or the several others we exchanged, and I never intended to cause him harm. It was a private e-mail. But by falsely portraying me the way they have, and by calling me a coward, in the New York Times no less, Nagourney and Okrent have most definitely caused me harm. And the real crime is that that was clearly their intention.Steve Schwenk
So that's why they call Jokrent a public editor, he edits the public's e-mails beyond recognition.

[realFedUp]

7. This isn't good for the NYT....should get more press