Eichenwald revisited
People may recall the excellent Debbie Nathan’s run-in with the New
York Times and its former reporter Kurt Eichenwald. Eichenwald did a
series on kiddie porn for the paper. Nathan wrote a piece for Salon
saying that researching a piece like that could put you at risk of
prosecution for felonious websurfing - so how’d Eichenwald get away
with it. Eichenwald & the Times got threatening, and Salon took down
the story immediately. (The story is recounted at
gave his star subject $2,000. Why? What’s it all mean?
Nathan has a recent report:
And Gawker posits an interesting timeline:
March 8th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
No offense to anyone, but a few of us have been blogging about Eichenwald for months, suspicious of his intentions from Day 1. But hey, as I noted elsewhere, I understand fully why such is. After all,, many in the media don’t want to be perceived as advocating for pedophiles or child pornography and as such, they all looked the other way.
Well, guess what? Now everyone who cuddled both Justin & Kurt are now having to eat it.
Hate to say I told you so, but…