No End?


-------- Original Message --------  
Subject:
 No End?
Date:
Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:30:12 -0400
From:
Steve Wilson <wilson@citicom.com>  
Reply-To:
wilson@citicom.com  
To:
Neil Skene <nskene@comcast.net>  
CC: Jane Akre <jakre@bellsouth.net>

So we finally get past the Atlanta crusade and extend it to Tampa,
rewritten, I see, but with the same kind of half-truths and outright
falsehoods I complained about before.

Here's just one example: you allow Sugg to continue to perpuate the
outright lie that we have exaggerated the possible legal liability :
<<Wilson acknowledged he has no basis for the $3-million figure, but
justified it by saying that Fox might -- just might -- someday be
awarded other fees.>>

Neil, you know full well that I have acknowledged the basis for the $3
million estimate is the fact that Fox has a pendinig motion for trial
costs and fees IN ADDITION to the dispute order that the defendant
receive costs and fees limited to the appeal.

I'm told you are a smart guy.  If so, you know it is not only
disengenious but outright false for your paper to publish, as a
statement of fact, that I "acknowledged I have no basis" for the
estimated liability when I have not only acknowledged no such thing but
given you documented proof the estimate is reasonable.  In fact, Sugg
told me Fox told him the actual cost could be closer to $5 million.

How many words can you offer me this time to correct this and other
errors in the paper and on-line?

Steve Wilson

-------- Original Message --------
  Subject:Re: from jane akre  
 Date:
Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:35:59 -0400
  From:Steve Wilson <wilson@citicom.com>
Reply-To:wilson@citicom.com
 
To:
Ken Edelstein <ken.edelstein@creativeloafing.com> References:<BBEMKPLCNNNPDDJFCJHJGENDDEAA.ken.edelstein@creativeloafing.com>

Hey Ken, Jane forwarded me your note.

We provided you with solid, documented evidence that Fox has a pending motion
before the trial court for fees and costs at the trial level.  Nonetheless,
you guys continue to allow Sugg to report:

    “Wilson acknowledged he has no basis for the $3-million figure, but 
        justified it by saying that Fox might -- just might -- someday be awarded other fees.”


Just tell me this...what kind of news organization continues to report what 
it knows to be false?  You are well aware that I have NEVER taken the position 
that I have no basis for the $3 million figure, yet you allow that to be stated 
as fact knowing its falsity?

I know it's technically not your paper, but it's your organization.  What
gives?

Steve Wilson



-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: Weekly Planet
Date:
Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:18:02 -0400  
From:
Steve Wilson <wilson@citicom.com>  
Reply-To: wilson@citicom.com  
To:
Jim Harper <jim.harper@weeklyplanet.com>  
CC:
Jane Akre <jakre@bellsouth.net>  
References:
<BBB48B3B.540F%jim.harper@weeklyplanet.com>

The article contains information which is false and misleading.  I would like an opportunity to respond. 
 In what form would you allow that and, assuming you will, by what deadline should I have it prepared

Steve

Jim Harper wrote:

Dear Mr. Wilson,

I understand you may have some comments about an article published this
 week in the Weekly Planet, for which I am the editor.

I'm assuming you have seen the story. Just in case you haven't, here's the website: http://www.weeklyplanet.com/current/news_feature.html

If you have any questions or concerns, you may direct them to me.

Sincerely,

Jim Harper
Editor
Weekly Planet

To celebrate creativity, to raise awareness, to counter injustice, to give
voice to those who are silenced, and to have fun telling good stories.

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Wilson [mailto:wilson@citicom.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:52 PM
> To: John Sugg
> Subject: Liar Liar

>
 < “Wilson acknowledged he has no basis for the $3-million figure, but  
justified
it by saying that Fox might -- just might -- someday be > awarded 
other fees.>>
>
> You know this is false.  We discussed it on the phone when you said Fox
> told you they had not yet decided what to do about the motion for costs
> and fees still pending before the trial court.  That hardly qualifies
> as "might--just might."
>
> Not only did I ever NOT acknowledge there is no basis for the $3 million
> estimate, I backed it up with clear evidence the estimate is NOT
> unreasonable.
>
> I give up on you John.  You don't care about printing truth or anything
> close to it.  You care about stringing along for a long as possible the
> pinnacle of your career at a free weekly where sex ads pay your salary
> and you're proud of it.
>
> And as for your reporting: you can re-write and try some artful new
> wording but your journalism is still demonstrably dishonest.  As a
> friend of mine likes to say: you can dress up a pig any way you like,
> underneath it's still a pig.

John Sugg wrote:

> Give it a break, Steve. You're the one who published the $3 million
figure.
> You admitted you didn't have any evidence for such a specific figure. You
> even asked me what I knew of Fox's intentions. You put out some hokey
> figures in an effort, much like an evangelist preaching of imminent fire
and brimstone, of juicing contributions.
>
> ______________________________________________________
> "Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity
> in the context of professional journalism."
>                          -- Hunter S. Thompson
>
> John Sugg
> Senior Editor
> Creative Loafing
> Atlanta, Georgia
> John.sugg@cln.com
> 404-614-1241

 



-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Wilson [mailto:wilson@citicom.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 4:37 PM
To: John Sugg
Subject: Re: Liar Liar



And my estimate, if anything, turned out to be too low, didn't it, John?
Didn't you tell me Fox people told you it was closer to maybe $5.  But the
point here isn't whether it's 3 or 5, the point is you lie to your readers
 when you say I acknowledge there was "no basis" for my $3m estimate.

This is the problem with you, like when you couldn't be honest about
recording phone calls, you just don't get what is ethical and what is not.

>

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Liar Liar
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:07:37 -0400
From: "John Sugg"
To:


Uh, and how was I dishonest about taping a phone call -- and that from a
guy made famous for his (as the Dade State Attorney put it) "set up" with
Guy Rubin. When someone asks you not to record a conversation, and you
remove one recording device but allow another one that's hidden to keep
 running that, Steve, is dishonest.

You asked, I didn't answer. No dishonesty there. Frankly the reason I
didn't respond immediately was that I was laughing and trying to choke back 
the laughter, having just refreshed my memory on the Rubin "set up." If I
had been Steve Wilson, I would have said, Nope, I don't have a tape recorder
running (and then hit the button on our phone system that records
conversations). Hey, Steve Wilson would say, the telephone isn't a tape
recorder, so I didn't lie. That would have been comparable to what you                     
did to Rubin. But I'm only John Sugg, and that sort of duplicity isn't in my
quiver.

You put conjecture on your website, with no factual basis. Fox has never
asked for $3m or $5m. Maybe they will. But they haven't. That is clear
in what I wrote.

______________________________________________________
"Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity
in the context of professional journalism."
                         -- Hunter S. Thompson

John Sugg
Senior Editor
Creative Loafing
Atlanta, Georgia
John.sugg@cln.com
404-614-1241



-------- Original Message --------  
Subject:
Re: Liar Liar  
Date:Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:21:33 -0400
From:Steve Wilson <wilson@citicom.com>  
Reply-To:
wilson@citicom.com
To:
John Sugg <john.sugg@creativeloafing.com>  
References: <BOEEILIIHBKOIOLEALKDGENMCPAA.john.sugg@creativeloafing.com>
 

Spin it, John.

The truth is you are a dishonest journalist.  Journalism would be better off
without you.  Thank gawd your reputation has spread far and wide enough that
you've been pigeonholed where you are and aren't in a place where you can do any serious damage to the profession.