Author Letter to New York Times, sent prior to publication of book,
and seeking responses to matters to be addressed in the book.
Sept. 18, 2009
From: Eddie Curran
133 Silverwood
Mobile, AL, 36607
E-mail: eddcurran@aol.com
Cell: 251-454-1911
Attn: Jill Abramson, Managing Editor
Suzanne Daley, National Desk Editor
Times reporters including: Adam Nossiter, Bill Carter, Eric Lipton, Eric Lichtblau, Adam Liptak, Edmond Andrews, John Schwartz
c/o: Uchenna Hicks
Subject: New York Times reporting on the Don Siegelman case.
Dear above-named reporters and editors,
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, editorial and, the reason for this letter, news side.
(I have sent a similar e-mail to editorial.)
I have a number of questions I would like answered. I am presenting many 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.
Some of the questions assume a certain degree of knowledge about the case, and based on the number of stories written, I have to believe your familiarity
with the case is such that only brief references are required.
The May 2007 affidavit of Dana Jill Simpson.
With two minor exceptions -- brief stories in 2004 and 2005 when Siegelman was indicted in the Bobo case then the Montgomery case – the paper never
assigned one of its staff reporters to the Siegelman story. The few pieces it ran were from the AP wire or by a stringer.
In late May 2007, Jill Simpson – until then, an entirely unknown figure in Alabama politics– 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.)
Since 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 Times), the paper has published 23 stories. Many were 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.
A similar trend is found on editorial side. The Siegelman case wasn’t so much as mentioned on that page until Jill Simpson’s affidavit. Since the affidavit,
there have been 15 editorials and three op-eds about or referring to the Siegelman case.
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.
Simpson is variously described as a “Republican lawyer” and/or “Republican operative.” Based on what evidence or source was she a “Republican operative?” Same with “Republican lawyer?” Has she ever represented the Republican Party in legal matters? Is the word operative pejorative?
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. Nor has her professional connection to long-time Siegelman friend Mark Bollinger been mentioned, and Bollinger’s role in the affidavit. Has the Times considered the possibility that Jill Simpson wasn’t a “Republican operative” but rather, a “Siegelman/Scrushy operative?”
Throughout its coverage the Times has characterized the $500,000 (two $250,000 checks) given by Scrushy to Siegelman as a routine campaign donation. Not once in 40-plus opinion and news stories were Times readers told that the donations were concealed from the secretary of state and IRS for more than two years; and that they were only reported because 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, as is required of campaign loans.
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 think news side has only mentioned the obstruction of justice charge against Siegelman once or twice, and then because it had no choice, since the issue was part of the appeal. However, no details of that charge have been reported. Why not present them, and let the reader decide?
The Times has never told its readers 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.
The Times has apparently never sought comment from any of the many well-regarded political science professors in Alabama who are familiar with Siegelman, choosing instead to repeatedly quote people like Robert Abrams (who admitted at Siegelman’s sentencing hearing that he really didn’t know anything about the case.)
I would characterize the coverage as heavy on commentary by Siegelman supporters (members of the same former AGs group Siegelman has long been active in) and friends of Siegelman and out-of-state law professors who may or may not know the facts of the case. In one alarming example, Adam Nossiter quoted Robert Blakey at length, with Blakey blistering the prosecution case. Blakey was one of Siegelman’s lawyers, and probably didn’t miss a day of trial. For reasons I can’t imagine, the Times elected to conceal this relationship from readers in presenting Blakey’s quotes.
Many of the news stories end with a quote by someone saying how horrible the Siegelman prosecution was. Does the Times believe that concluding stories with quotes showing a clear bias towards one side or another is a form of editorializing?
If the above observations are incorrect, please correct me.
I hesitate to mention editorial’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 Feb. 24, 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. The paper has, at times, continued to cite Simpson as a source of the allegations against Rove and others.
Has anyone at the Times ever interviewed and/or met Jill Simpson?
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 Times considers Jill Simpson credible. Am I wrong there?
The“60 Minutes,” black-out
During the, “60 Minutes” program, 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 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. These folks are obviously seeking to use the media to win freedom for the two men. I feel certain these same people are feeding information to the Times, editorial and news side, either directly or indirectly.
Among my questions:
How did Bill Carter, a Times business writer, become aware of this arcane (to say nothing of erroneous) 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 the Times question the sources that were 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 identities should be off the table. Were they connected to Siegelman, Scrushy and/or their legal teams or public relations operation?
In a related question, did members of the Times’ news staff, including Adam Nossiter, consult or discuss the Siegelman case with Scott Horton of Harper’s? Did Nossiter and others on news side share information with Adam Cohen; or receive information from Cohen?
Karl Rove’s testimony
In July 2009, Karl Rove answered questions under penalty of perjury from the Judiciary Committee. More than 50 pages of the transcript were devoted to questions about the Siegelman case. Many of your news stories on the Siegelman case involved the allegations that Rove was involved in that prosecution.
On Aug. 12, you published a length, front-page piece by Eric Lichtblau and Eric Lipton (“E-mail Reveals Rove’s Key Role in ’06 Dismissals.”
Absent was the first mention of Rove’s testimony on the Siegelman case.
Why did your reporters fail to mention the Siegelman aspect of the testimony and, assuming they didn’t, why didn’t the editors compel them to?
Was it because Rove’s denials on that matter were convincing?
I realize this is long, but I have, and in the book will address, other elements of the Times’ coverage, especially regarding stories by Adam Nossiter. I wonder if the Times, or Nossiter, is aware that the lawyer for “whistleblower” Tamara Grimes – whose allegations were presented in his Nov. 22 story – is Martin Adams; that Adams is Richard Scrushy’s son-in-law, and was a lawyer of record for Scrushy in the Siegelman/Scrushy case?
That story cited – and the web-page gave a link to – an “affidavit” by a juror. Does the Times know anything about that affidavit? For example, does the paper know the juror didn’t write or say those things, and that it was put together by a Birmingham pastor and friend of Richard Scrushy, and that all of this is part of the public record and was covered in the Alabama media?
Lastly, does the Times stand by the accuracy and fairness of its coverage of 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
P.S. I might add that I love the New York Times. I visit its web-site a dozen or more times on the average day. It’s my top source for national, international, business and cultural news and has been for many years.