 |
| You'll never see this in The Hoboken Reporter |
The fact that our local rag, The Hoboken Reporter, dislikes the Zimmer administration and any of it's advocates is a given.
The fact that they are hostile to the Reform blogosphere was proven by events last April.
That's when City Councilwoman Beth Mason and her political operative (and Board Member of her 501(3)(c) charity, The Mason Civic League, Inc.) were allowed access to reporter Stephen LaMarca to pitch a story about MSV posting a Nazi video, and GA writing about a 'gas chamber'.
The so-called GA gas-chamber 'evidence' turned out to be a photoshopped screen shot from my blog. GA discovered that because the knucklehead left his electronic signature on the document forwarded to me from a source at The Hoboken Reporter.
 |
| Busted |
The so-called 'Nazi video' was never posted on MSV but was actually done by anonymous person(s) called 411Hoboken (not to be confused with Hoboken411). This discovery was not rocket-science, but a Google search and click away.
In other words, the HR was ready to blast two citizen-bloggers with vile, inflammatory and harmful accusations in print of using Third Reich rhetoric and imagery against a politician, Beth Mason who, coincidentally, had purchased a block of their page 3 ads running consecutively since mid-April (except for one week when this scandal broke). I've got them all.
Well, when this hit-job was exposed, first on GA, then on MSV, what happened?
Did the publisher, David Unger call either of us to 'explain' themselves? God forbid, even apologize? Or Editor Gene Ritching?
What do you think?
Exactly.
After weeks of wondering what would appear in their pages, Horsey and I heard.... nothing.
The Hoboken Reporter killed the story.
And let Al Sullivan- the only reporter there GA will EVER talk to- craft an 'explanation.'
But GA heard that behind-the-scenes this caused severe tumult and embarrassment among management. And GA heard from a source at the HR that the Mason operative was heard screaming at management after the story was killed.
Folks, that's the dirty, filthy swamp we live in.
In case you missed that episode, here are the links to GA's articles as it ran its ugly course.
- ***Mello Gets the Hatchet (unrelated, but another example of anti-Reform bias at the HR)
But GA is anticipating a hatchet job in tomorrow's paper; when Al Sullivan's copy reaches management for 'editing.'
If I am wrong, I'll say so. If I am right, I'll say more.
Folks, we live in a dirty Mile Square.
(Updated, Aug. 18, 2012, 11:30 AM)
Well, folks GA was right.
Here's what I did with today's Hoboken Reporter.
 |
| C'mon, kitty. |
Unfortunately, my cat hasn't had the opportunity to piss on it yet.
(She occasionally 'misses' the box, her rump cantilevered far beyond it's edge, so with any luck the trashy tabloid will be covered in no time.)
I won't spill too much cyber-ink on this drek now.
Let me just tell you that the Editors lavished much ink editorializing allegations to the point any yellow journalist would be proud of.. pages one, and two.. and:
- They buried MY comments on the third page, near the END of the 3-page article.
- They published MY comments way, way AFTER Beth Mason's! (Who strategically skipped advertising on page 3 this week).
- I NEVER SENT THE HOBOKEN REPORTER AN EMAIL calling this matter 'political theater'- I have NO IDEA where and WHEN that email was written.
The HOBOKEN REPORTER USED AN UNRELATED EMAIL OUT-OF-CONTEXT in an article ABOUT THIS SUIT.
The mis-use of THAT EMAIL with respect to this matter is worse than YELLOW JOURNALISM.
They've stepped into a legal mine field.
Okay people. Take a look at EXACTLY what GA actually GAVE the paper for this article- ALL they were PERMITTED to quote me on.
The Bijardis (sp) see this as a kind of harassment, you see is a political satire, what do you see as the difference?That's ALL.
Again, this is a malicious use of the courts to suppress the political speech of the two most prominent reform political bloggers and all political discourse from the Reform side. The effort to drag in the Mayor, who is irrelevant, makes that clear. Dumping the complaint online, with all context for allegations removed, and Horsey and I unable to respond publicly, and the vicious personal attacks on Horse and I by anti-reform websites is part and parcel of the politcal nature of this suit. It is a SLAPP.
What public benefit do you see this satire accomplishes?
This SLAPP is not about satire. This SLAPP is about icing speech on the reform blogosphere and dragging the Mayor- who is irrelevant- into it.
Why do you think the suit was filed now?
In advance of labor Day mayoral announcements. It is politically-driven. Politically-motivated.
What would you consider “going too far,” and has this ever been done to you?
The First Amendment applies to all.
They claim that you targeted them for violence with the so called threat to shoot, what is your take on that?
Absurd. The press cherry-picks that quote out-of-context, but neglects mentioning in the same letter I wrote I'd "use the Vulcan Death grip" or about sharing falafels at Mamoun's with the FBI. Or the fact it was one in a long satirical series. The fact that the press omits any context is proof of media bias against bloggers. If they had any interest in fairness, I would have been contacted for a discussion about that piece prior to producing a hatchet. Your paper has done that to me a number of times.
Do you see ANYTHING there about "political theater"?
Didn't I TELL the paper that this matter is NOT about satire?
I DID.
But The Hoboken Reporter printed the OPPOSITE, pulling an old email about "political theater" and grafting it onto this story, like grafting the head of a lizard onto a rabbit.
Now that this is a LEGAL matter, you would think the Hoboken Reporter would be more careful.
MUCH more careful.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy only advice to you (publicly) as you go down this road with the case is to keep your lips sealed on what your strategy is. At the end of the day you're likely facing an opponent with an open wallet and endless amounts of money in that wallet. You have a formidable foe.
ReplyDeleteGiving them ANY head's up as to your thought process is essentially giving away the game and helping them win. I think that if you give away your strategy early you'll in for a protracted and costly legal battle.
So, to you and your commenters, I say, "Hush on legal strategy." Keep on keeping on, but every time someone posts an idea that seems like a good legal strategy here or on any other site, they're just giving Lane & Co an idea of what to defend.
If someone has a legal suggestion, they should email you privately. And you should stop talking to any reporters anywhere other than to give brief & non-descriptive comments like: "I have faith in the justice system, and the truth will prevail. I will win this case against free speech."
Hope this helps
I agree with Mel, although they're not that smart. That said, behaving honestly and ethically as you do is always a winning strategy because they are so unable to think in those patterns, it confounds them.
ReplyDeleteExposing lies, greed and corruption of elected officials whose craven lust for power does damage to all of us is a high moral calling and with the use of your brilliant satire, you do it well. Thank you.
Who know that the Hoboken Reporter had reporters - or editors for that matter! One thing's for certain, they don't have fact checkers. Like many in town, I haven't read this paper in years, but when the day comes - and it will -when one of their regular advertisers is in trouble, will they report that news? Now THAT'S a story we'll all look forward to reading.
Sadly, you're wrong, GA. Objective reporting means telling all sides if possible. That's not what blogs do, often ignoring facts inconsistent their their preconceptions.
ReplyDelete"Objective reporting"?
ReplyDeleteNothing objective, there.
You KNOW about the extent and nature of the political activities of a certain individual- oh yes you DO, but was THAT in the story? Not a peep. Might that be relevant? Even Augie Torres got it right- never thought I'd say those words.
Props to Augie! (Did I just say that?)
Augie, you ROCK. (Did I say that?)
Augie's the MAN. (Did I really say that?)
And the HR BURIES my comments on page 3- AFTER your serial page-3 ad buyer Beth Mason's?
Is Mason a Defendant? Really? Maybe she'll get to be one, one day. Until she IS and I am NOT, you might want to tell me why her comments took precedence over the 'accused', and my point-of-view was at the tail of the story?
Maybe I need to buy blocks of page-3 ads, too.
I would say that wasn't "objective" reporting.
You know, people warned me not to bother talking to your paper but you're a friend, I like you and respect you. I can hear them now... "I told you so."
And what the hell was that email from some other time and place- an out of context graft onto the story about a lawsuit, misleading the public as though I thought this matter was all 'political theater'?
What was THAT about? I went on the record only with what I sent you, not some email dug up from someone's file about something else. So, it looks like I think this matter is "political theater", thanks to your tabloid.
I DO NOT, and you know it. But our offline conversations are between us. This matter is drenched in politics- many hands are involved. Wouldn't you agree?
You're an excellent writer. A personal friend. That said, I hope my cat takes a big dump on your story.
Lastly, don't compare bloggers and online commenters to journalists. Silly.
Journalism is a business. That's why your stories go to your editor and others who pick over them and tweaks them, adds the angle or takes it away or whatever; only when the sausage passes inspection it goes to market.
And tell the idiot in your Graphics Department it wasn't necessary to blur the street names on the SATIRICAL blog post. So much for "objective reporting".
Don't tell me THAT wasn't done to make it appear like there was something sinister in that letter. How many thousands of people live on Park and Hudson?
Maybe you should have gone to planet Vulcan to ask Dr. Spock if he minded the HR publishing GA's "the Vulcan Death Grip" reference in the SAME latter. In which case, your Graphics-idiot could have blurred that out, too. ANd maybe you should have blurred out the word "falafels" for fear of offending carnivores.
Your paper sucks. The absolute worst.
Feel free to call me if you want to fight more offline. Defend this crap all you want
Agree with Mel. Deep, mindless pockets to be dealt with. This suit is, very sadly, something to be slowly and expensively picked apart. Don't show them any cards.
ReplyDelete