Following is Scott Horton's response to the misleading reporting on the Rove/Simpson/Siegelman connections that will air on 60 Minutes tomorrow (opposite the Oscars!). Watch the right-wing spin at work. Curran's hit piece at the Montgomery Independent is now up on the site (with an editor's note, see below). Also, I have posted a useful analysis from a legal reporters blog from Alabama dated today that helps address much of the issues used in the Montgomery Independent/American Spectator hit pieces. (Also, check out
L.C.'s thread for background in prepartion for Sunday 60 Minutes broadcast - opposite the Oscars! Cute, CBS):
Scott Horton at Harper's:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2911537&mesg_id=2911537There is a big inaccuracy in this reporting. First Ben Evans writes: “She has never before said that Rove pressed her for evidence of marital infidelity in spite of testifying to congressional lawyers last year, submitting a sworn affidavit and speaking extensively with reporters.” Evans is dead wrong on this. If he had written “It has not previously been reported that she said that Rove…” he would be fine. I interviewed Simpson in July and she recounted this to me; and I believe she recounted it to two other reporters as well, one with another major national publication, but I’ll let them speak for themselves. She requested that I not write it up or report it without her prior okay, and I abided by her request. My understanding is that she also gave this information to congressional investigators when they initially interviewed her. So Evans is incorrect. Or, more to the point, he assumes in his writing more than he could possibly know.
But second, Robert Luskin states that CBS never spoke to Rove directly about this.
Now let’s look at the CBS’s teaser on the piece. It addresses this question:
Rove would not speak to 60 Minutes, but elsewhere has denied being involved in efforts to discredit Siegelman.
So it suggests that Rove was contacted and refused to speak.
Well, Luskin’s statement is wrong. And the CBS statement is true only in the way that a butler announces to an unwanted caller that “Madam is not at home” is true: it’s a formulation that covers a different set of facts which those in the news business understand. In fact, Rove was contacted by CBS and did speak with CBS about the allegations. Rove insisted that his comments could not be used in any way without his prior permission.
Here is the American Spectator hit-piece (referenced by Larisa Alexandrovna and countered in
a DU post HERE - give it a recommended!) that as part of the spin quotes the misleading AP story.
As if the liberal establishment media isn't already embarrassed enough by the bizarrely thin New York Times hatchet job against John McCain, now 60 Minutes comes along to run with an even less documented, and frankly far less believable hatchet job against Karl Rove -- without even asking Rove to respond! The whole story is not just sleazy journalism, it's whatever ranks below "sleazy" on the absolute scale of perfidy.
- snip -
THE TRUTH IS that the entire Siegelman investigation stemmed from a series of articles in the Mobile Register (my former newspaper) by ace investigative reporter Eddie Curran, a winner of numerous journalism awards who is anything but a Republican.
An excerpt from Larisa's post countering the American Spectator article:
Actually the TRUTH is a bit more interesting than this. Mr. Curran - I am told - authored in ghost form some Siegelman prosecution documents. That hardly makes him an ace investigative journalist. Rather, he appears to be nothing more than a hired shill. I suggest Mr. Quin vet his sources better. He might want to ask Mr. Curran about his father's close friendship with Senator Jeff Sessions.
Here is Eddie Curran's attack (and it is an attack!) on Scott Horton in the Montgomery Independent:
http://www.al.com/news/independent/index.ssf?/base/news/1203797709157730.xml&coll=4This is the editor's note that precedes it:
EDITOR'S NOTE: Eddie Curran is on leave from the Mobile Press-Register while writing a book on the Don Siegelman investigation, indictment and trial. The Independent's readers should be familiar with Eddie's articles about the former governor, most which were published in this newspaper and had a significant impact on the investigation and indictment of Siegelman.
This article seeks to defend Mark Fuller, the judge in the Siegelman trial, and in so doing, is very critical of columnist Scott Horton, who writes a blog for Harpers Magazine and is occasionally published in The Independent. Horton has been critical of the former "Newhouse" newspapers in Alabama, which includes the Press-Register, The Birmingham News and The Huntsville Times, for not reporting fairly on the Siegelman case. He has also criticized Curran, suggesting that his work relies heavily on the prosecutor's case.
The Independent has not published any criticisms of those newspapers, now operated under the corporate umbrella of Advance Publications, or any criticisms of Eddie Curran, a friend of the editor. Horton's writings are opinion columns and have been published in the opinion section of the newspaper. However, we have corroborated any facts reported in his articles, particularly those involving Judge Fuller's ownership in Doss Aviation, Doss of Alabama and Aureus International, their contracts with the Air Force, the FBI and the Department of Defense and Judge Fuller's 43.75% ownership, which is documented in federal court filings. Judge Fuller has not refuted this information. Eddie called and requested to write this article, which we publish without editing, and even though it is an opinion article, we start it on Page One.
Would be nice if we could get the Horton post to the Greatest Page (or this post) for people who are interested. A lot of this is going to be lost on people over the weekend. Thanks. - H'spit
UPDATE: This at Legal Schnauzer blog from today...
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2008/02/eddie-curran-resurfaces-in-siegelman.htmlOne couple's encounter with corrupt judges, slimy lawyers, and incompetent prosecutors in Alabama. . . and how you can avoid being cheated by the vermin who make a mockery of our justice system.Saturday, February 23, 2008
Eddie Curran Resurfaces in Siegelman Saga A familiar character has resurfaced in the Don Siegelman saga, just in time for tonight's story on the case by 60 Minutes. Eddie Curran, who wrote an extensive series of articles that sparked the Siegelman investigation, apparently has a new piece in the Montgomery Independent. According to a number of reports on the Web, Curran's article is in the print version of the Independent, which was published Friday, but evidently is not available yet on the Web.
I haven't seen Curran's latest piece, but I understand that it attacks the testimony of Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson and the reporting of Harper's Scott Horton.
Curran normally writes for the Mobile Press-Register. But he has been on sabbatical from the paper in order to finish a book on the Siegelman case.
We've had some interaction with Curran and found him to be quite a character. You can read about our experiences with Mr. Curran
here and
here.
From reading this account, some might call Mr. Curran a flake. Some might call him a meathead. Some might call him an ass. Some might call him a hero. I understand that Curran has sent numerous wacky e-mails to Scott Horton. If Horton decides to share those e-mails with the world, it should be highly entertaining.
I've been a journalist for almost 30 years, and I've known a few reporters in my time. Some of the best ones are fruitcakes, and Mr. Curran might be keeping with this fine tradition. A reporter can be plenty eccentric and still be a fine reporter.
But I think it's fair to ask just how objective Curran might be at this point regarding Ms. Simpson's testimony and Scott Horton's reporting.
It is well documented that Curran is indeed writing a book about the Siegelman case.How much interest would there be in Curran's book if, through Simpson's testimony and Horton's reporting, it is shown that the prosecution was politically motivated and Siegelman was, in fact, not guilty. If I were in Curran's shoes, I very much would want the Siegelman conviction to stand. If it doesn't, I would fear that my book either would never be published or
would sell about six copies.I've spoken with a number of sources who have questioned Curran's objectivity all along regarding Don Siegelman. Larissa Alexandrovna, of at-Largely, seems to be getting at this when she notes that Curran's father, a Mobile attorney, has a particularly close relationship with U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions.
Of course, we learned a few weeks back that Lanny Young, a prime witness against Siegelman, also presented evidence about improper gifts he made to Sessions. Those allegations, however, apparently were never seriously investigated, while Siegelman was not only investigated but prosecuted.
On the subject of Eddie Curran's objectivity, I can only add this: I sent him at least two e-mails about the wrongdoing I had witnessed by Republican judges in Alabama state courts. I also had about a 10- to 12-minute phone conversation with him one day. He has yet to ask me the first question about what I witnessed. That might be because he's tied up with the Siegelman book. It might be because he thinks I'm a nutjob. But I would have been more impressed with his objectivity if he had at least referred me to another Press-Register reporter or editor and encouraged them to question me in a serious way. I would welcome such an inquiry. But I suspect Mr. Curran knows that no one at his paper wants to know the truth of what happened in my case.
MORE
Clearly, the hit pieces are desperation pieces. Why are they so nervous?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
