To the New York Times, editorial page.

From: Eddie Curran

133 Silverwood

Mobile, AL, 36607

E-mail: eddcurran@aol.com

Cell: 251-454-1911

Attn: Andrew Rosenthal, Editorial Page Editor

Adam Cohen, Assistant Editor, Editorial Page

c/o: Uchenna Hicks

hicksul@nytimes.com

Subject: Times’ editorials and op/eds regarding former Don Siegelman

Dear Mr. Rosenthal and Mr. Cohen,

I’m a reporter from Mobile, Ala., soon to complete a book on former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, about whom I reported on extensively when he was governor. (See link to that reporting at bottom.)

I am self-publishing the book and hope to have it for sale by late November or early December.

The book was to end with the trial and sentencing of Gov. Siegelman and his co-defendant, former HealthSouth Corp. chairman Richard Scrushy. However, I have added a final section to address allegations by a north Alabama woman, Dana Jill Simpson; and, more specifically, the coverage of the Siegelman case by certain national media since Ms. Simpson’s May 2007 affidavit.

Primarily, I’m addressing the coverage by “60 Minutes,” Time, Harper’s, and the New York Times, news side, and, the reason for this letter, editorial. (I will be sending a similar e-mail with questions to news side.)

I have a number of questions I would like answered. I am presenting most of them here by subject matter. In the event that either of you or someone at the paper chooses to respond to these questions, I may have others.

The May 2007 affidavit of Dana Jill Simpson.

From the period with Don Siegelman’s 2002 defeat through the criminal investigation of his administration, his 2006 trial and up until June 2007, his name did not appeared once in a New York Times editorial or op-ed. In late May 2007, Jill Simpson – until then, an entirely unknown figure in Alabama political – swore out an affidavit implicating Karl Rove and others as orchestrating the prosecution, for political reasons, of Don Siegelman. Until then, Siegelman had been very publicly blaming Alabama Gov. Bob Riley and others for in some way causing the investigation of him, but had never mentioned Rove. (Now, he almost never mentions Riley.)

After Jill Simpson’s affidavit (filed, not in a court of law, but given to supporters of Siegelman and Richard Scrushy and, apparently by them, to Time and the New York Times), Siegelman has appeared in 15 Times’ editorials. All were heartily pro-Siegelman, and, when his name appeared, sharply anti-Rove. In addition, Adam Cohen has penned three op-eds, all stridently pro-Siegelman. The phrase “political hit” has been applied at least three times to the Siegelman prosecution in your editorial page.

With two minor exceptions --- brief stories in 2004 and 2005 – news side never assigned one of its staff reporters to the Siegelman story until Jill Simpson’s affidavit. After Simpson’s affidavit, the paper published 23 stories. Many have been devoted entirely to Siegelman’s situation, others primarily to him, and in some cases, his plight was noted in connection with other, supposedly similar matters.

First, some observations on those 23 articles and 18 opinion pieces:

• There is not a single mention of the KKK pictures for election concession fable that was the centerpiece of Simpson’s affidavit and which was refuted by everyone involved, including Siegelman and the lawyers who represented him during the 2002 election challenge. Only the Alabama media has reported this.
• There is no mention of the similarly repudiated deal described by Simpson in her September 2007 testimony. In this story, Siegelman conceded the election in return for a Republican pledge to end the investigation. Only the Alabama media has reported that all the parties involved have said they never heard of the deal testified to by Simpson.
• Never were Times readers told that Simpson was in contact with Siegelman, Scrushy and their representatives and legal teams in the months before she filed her affidavit; that she researched Fuller’s finances on behalf of both defendants and that she ordered the judge’s credit report; or that she helped proof Scrushy’s recusal motion. Only the Alabama media has reported this.
• Throughout its coverage the Times has characterized the $500,000 (two $250,000 checks) given by Scrushy to Siegelman routine campaign donation. Not once in 40-plus opinion and news stories were readers told that the donations were concealed from the secretary of state and IRS for more than two years; and then only after the attorney general compelled disclosure (following months of stories by the Mobile Register.) Also, Siegelman was personally liable for a $730,000 loan that was largely paid off by the $500,000. That loan was never disclosed on campaign reports.
• Not once did the Times (news or editorial side) present even a summary sentence indicating any degree of irregularity in the first $250,000  donation. In fact, the names of the real donors – Maryland-based Integrated Health by way of New York-based UBS – are not to be found in any of the pieces.  (I would suggest, if you haven’t, that you  read the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals March 2009 ruling upholding the guilty verdicts.)
• I stand to be corrected, but I don’t believe the editorial side has even mentioned the obstruction of justice charge against Siegelman, meaning it hasn’t provided readers with the details of his actions and that charge.
• The Times (editorial as well as news side) neglected to mention even once that Siegelman and Scrushy declined to testify at trial. Nor were readers told that Siegelman, after first saying he would testify before the Judiciary Committee, reneged on that promise. Siegelman’s testimony avoidance is noteworthy because the paper has repeatedly noted Karl Rove’s refusal to testify before the Judiciary Committee.
• The bylines of at least 10 different Times’ reporters appeared atop the stories, indicating that the coverage was for the most part editor driven.

I hesitate to mention news side’s coverage as I know there is supposed to be a wall between editorial and news side. However, considering the lack of activity on both sides regarding the Siegelman case until June 2001, and the great sudden interest by both after Simpson’s affidavit, the flurry of activity and similarities of facts reported (and those ignored) will be addressed in my book, though I invite response and comment.

Jill Simpson’s credibility

In February 2008, “60 Minutes” aired an interview with Jill Simpson in which she claimed that Karl Rove hired and/or assigned her to follow then governor Siegelman in an attempt to catch/take pictures of him having extramarital sex. Among other things, Simpson also said that it was not the first time Rove asked her to work on “intelligence” operations.

By this point, Jill Simpson’s credibility was, at least according to most people who followed this situation, in tatters. After, “60 Minutes,” she was, and I don’t mean this ugly, a joke.

However, the story she started (Rove, among others, orchestrating Siegelman’s prosecution) continued, at least in the pages of the New York Times. On June 2 – four months after the “60 Minutes” show -- you published an editorial, “Mr. Rove Talks, but Doesn’t Answer,” and repeated the allegations by Ms. Simpson.

On Feb. 2, with, “A New Subpoena for Karl,” you didn’t mention Simpson by name, but as a “whistleblower, who identified Rove as participating in Siegelman’s prosecution.

Does the editorial page believe it should present serious allegations by people who are not credible?

Assuming the answer to that question is no, I can only assume that the editorial page considers Jill Simpson credible. Am I wrong there?

The“60 Minutes,” black-out

During the “60 Minutes” program on the Siegelman case, a technical glitch knocked out the signal at WHNT, the CBS affiliate in Huntsville. For about the first 10 minutes, viewers saw nothing. (I believe the FCC has officially determined this to be the case but am double-checking.)

That night, Scott Horton, an Internet columnist for Harper’s beat everyone to the story, posting a column that very night. Horton, as I assume you know, has been, along with your page, one of the chief proponents of the “Siegelman as victim of Rove-led political prosecution” story. Wrote Horton: “In a stunning move of censorship, the transmission was blocked across the northern third of Alabama by CBS affiliate WHNT.”

Horton was also the first to report that WHNT was owned by Oak Hill Capital Partners. “Oak Hill Partners represents interests of the Bass family, which contribute heavily to the Republican Party,” he wrote.

Horton is either a lightning-fast researcher or the beneficiary of people working on behalf of Siegelman and co-defendant Richard Scrushy to use the media to win freedom for the two men, as I believe – though stand to be corrected – is the Times, editorial and news side.

The New York Times followed Horton. News side published two stories on the black-out, and you published an editorial that managed to compare the 10-minute black-out to Alabama’s racist past. It began: “In 1955, when WLBT-TV, the NBC affiliate in Jackson, Miss., did not want to run a network report about racial desegregation, it famously hung up the sign: ‘Sorry, Cable Trouble.”

The Times either took its news from Horton or shared the same Alabama sources. I can think of no other explanation. In any event, your editorial (as well as news side) reported, erroneously, a connection between WHNT and the Bass brothers from Fort Worth. You wrote: “WHNT is owned by Oak Hill Capital Partners, a private equity firm whose lead investor is one of the Bass brothers of Texas. The brothers are former business partners of George W. Bush and generous contributors to Republican causes.”

You used innuendo to connect high-level Republicans and Bush supporters to the black-out.

Among my questions:

How did you become aware of this arcane (to say nothing of incorrect) piece of information connecting the Bass brothers to WHNT?

After learning the truth – that WHNT is largely owned by the “Democratic” Bass -- did it make you question the sources who had been providing you with other information about the Siegelman case?

Who were these sources? If they provided you with incorrect information, then any deal to protect their identifies should be off the table.

In a related question, did members of the Times’ editorial staff consult or discuss the Siegelman case with Scott Horton?

2002 Election

Adam Cohen has at least twice cited a report or study by James Gundlach on Alabama’s 2002 gubernatorial election. How did the Times come to acquire that otherwise little-known (to say nothing of laughably flawed) study?

Has the Times sought to ask people in Alabama – including Democratic leaders in the legislature – about the circumstances of the initially misreported vote counts in Baldwin County?

Has the Times done a simple Nexis search about the circumstances of what happened in Baldwin County?

Would the Times be at all interested in another version of what occurred besides that which is alleged in the Gundlach study?

Does the Times believe that the Alabama media is so lame or biased toward one candidate over another that we (and by we, I mean a small army of reporters and editors) would not heavily scrutinize what happened in Baldwin County if in fact there was evidence showing votes were changed to steal the election?

Adam Cohen’s friendships in Alabama

I believe that Adam Cohen authored most or all of the 15 editorials and am asking you to confirm that.

I’m also asking you to declare that Cohen’s friends from his time in Montgomery did not influence the Times editorials, or provide the Times, and thus its readers, with inaccurate information; or, in the alternative, that they did.

For example, Siegelman, in the Times, Time, Harper’s and elsewhere, is presented circa 2004-2005 as a great threat to Bob Riley and the Republicans. I question if you can find anyone in Alabama, such as one of our oft-quoted political science professors, who would support that.

Is Adam Cohen a friend of Don Siegelman’s?

How about Siegelman’s long-time personal lawyer, Bobby Segall?

Did he consult with/receive information from Siegelman, Segall, Horton or Siegelman’s lawyers?

Karl Rove’s Testimony

Your editorial page has repeatedly urged, and in the strongest terms, that Rove be compelled to testify about the Siegelman case.

In July 2009, Karl Rove answered questions under penalty of perjury from the Judiciary Committee. More than 50 pages of the transcript was devoted to questions about the Siegelman case.

 On Aug. 13, the editorial page published, “More Evidence of a Scandal.”

Absent was the first mention of Rove’s testimony regarding Siegelman.

Despite having published 18 opinion pieces solely or partially about the Siegelman case, why did you fail to mention Rove’s testimony about the Siegelman case, even with one sentence?

Is it because Rove refuted the story-line that your editorial page had been pushing for more than two years?

Finally, does the Times’ editorial page believe it has upheld journalistic standards of accuracy and fairness in its editorializing on the Siegelman case?

Should you wish to do a telephone interview, please provide me with a phone number and suggest a good time for me to call. If you prefer to answer by e-mail, that would be fine as well. If you elect not to respond, I ask that you let me know.

Sincerely,

Eddie Curran

Link to stories on Siegelman while he was governor:

http://www.al.com/specialreport/mobileregister/index.ssf?contracts.html