Eichenwald suing Nathan
[Kurt Eichenwald writes to Romenesko]
http://poynter.org/forum/?id=3Dletters
[…]
Finally, about Debbie Nathan. This is a woman who has a vendetta =
against me. I already know that one publication has refused to =
publish her articles on this matter because of their concern that she =
seemed too determined to hurt me. She has a deep, personal conflict =
that cannot be resolved by disclosure. And now, she and I are =
litigants. My wife and I have instructed our financial advisor to set =
aside $100,000 to finance the initial portions of this lawsuit. This =
woman has falsely accused me of breaking child pornography laws, of =
subscribing to gay porn sites, of admitting that I was wrong in =
sending the money, of acknowledging that I violated journalistic =
rules, etc. I have done none of that. She has acknowledged engaging =
in libel per se. She is about to learn the consequences of that.
At this time, I consider Salon to be a victim of Nathan=92s =
unprofessionalism, and will not be naming them in this suit. New York =
Magazine has, so far, been very professional about dealing with this =
issue, and are examining whether Nathan=92s statements about my =
testimony actually coincides with what I said. As a result, I also =
consider them Nathan=92s victims, and will not be naming them. Jack =
Shafer, who cited Nathan extensively in his piece, did so in good faith.
However, anyone else who relies on Nathan=92s misleading and false =
report to depict what occurred in the courtroom in Michigan is on =
notice. If you wish to speak to lawyers in the case, go to it. If you =
want a transcript of what I said, I will provide it when I have it. =
But I will not be held accountable for the statements that Nathan =
falsely depicts me as having said. And if you choose to rely on this =
conflicted woman for your reports, you do so at your own legal peril.
[…]
March 12th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
The question, Doug, which you should be asking yourself is: Why did Justin Berry’s dormant website go back online ten days after Eichenwald’s check?