Salon | Letters to the editor

_______________ROTTEN BANANA BY BRUCE SHAPIRO (07/08/98)

Journalists have really taken a beating this season, and for the most part, deservedly so. But amid all the negative hoopla surrounding the profession recently, Bruce Shapiro's commentary on the fate of Cincinnati Enquirer investigative reporter Mike Gallagher is the first I have read to point out that the series on Chiquita Banana was essentially correct. After the Stephen Glass fiasco opened the can of worms that led Time and CNN to crawl out, along with Boston Globe columnist Patricia Smith, I was disappointed to hear about the Cincinnati Enquirer's debasing public apology and huge cash settlement.
But what really bothered me about that incident was that the paper was forced to eat its words even while it refused to say they were wrong. A careful reading of the apology, the story and the public statements from both the paper and the corporation made it clear to me that in fact, the story was completely correct. Gallagher did what good reporters do: He dug around in the dirt that the corporate fat cats would prefer remain undisturbed, and he emerged with Chiquita Banana's dirty laundry.
While I cannot condone his minor legal transgression, it seems a small crime compared to the egregious violations of Chiquita Banana. Whether he illegally obtained the voice mail tapes by himself or received them from an anonymous source is a subtle distinction. In one case he loses his job and faces national criticism; in the other, he is potentially nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. While Gallagher certainly deserves a public tongue-lashing for his apparent pilfering of voice mail, Chiquita Banana deserves high praise for its skillful manipulation of the public and an international inquiry -- at least -- into its business practices. The real villain in this fiasco is the Cincinnati Enquirer, which failed to stand by a talented reporter who got the story right, and completely kowtowed to the interests of big business.
-- Will Wade
You don't have to be a journalism major to realize that the transgressions of reporter Mike Gallagher are minuscule compared to the corporate arrogance of Chiquita, which considers itself above the law in Central America, and is intent on turning Cincinnati into its own banana republic.
Salon and Bruce Shapiro have done us a service by reporting that one of the best recent examples of investigative reporting is being erased from the public record by a newspaper that had its facts straight but its ethics askew.
I can recall only one case of a newspaper's being successfully sued for libel for printing a story that was factually correct: Mobil Oil's judgment against the Washington Post a few years back. But it was later overturned by an appeals judge named Kenneth Starr, who is now pursuing a criminal case against the president of the United States based on -- and this will confuse Mike Gallagher -- illegally recorded phone messages.
-- Chuck Meyer
Austin, Texas

_______________AUTHOR, AUTHOR! BY JONATHAN BRODER (07/08/98)

Since the Lewinsky scandal took over the news, Salon has done an excellent job of overhyping minor nuggets of information as evidence that Kenneth Starr is a maniac bent on destroying the president, but this time you have gone too far.
Jonathan Broder's article on the "talking points" summarizes the theories of other journalists on the origins of the document. (Summarizing other journalists is what Broder does best.) There are several suspects for authorship of the talking points, but not one serious journalist (and not even Broder) alleges that Mr. Starr had anything to do with the points. So why did Salon tease the article by asking if the talking points were a "White House crime or Starr dirty trick?"
By implying on the front page that Starr may have been behind the talking points, even though the article does not contain a single word to that effect, Salon has finally abandoned all pretense of integrity. If Salon's editors have any capacity for shame remaining, however slight, you should be feeling it right now.
-- Shane Ham
Editor's note: Due to an editing error, we ran an inaccurate cover line for Jonathan Broder's July 8 article, "Author, Author!" As soon as we discovered our mistake, we corrected the cover line. Salon regrets the error.
N E X T+P A G E+| Horowitz: Champion of racial equality or shameless race-baiter?

_______________ROTTEN BANANA BY BRUCE SHAPIRO (07/08/98)
	Journalists have really taken a beating this season, and for the most part, deservedly so. But amid all the negative hoopla surrounding the profession recently, Bruce Shapiro's commentary on the fate of Cincinnati Enquirer investigative reporter Mike Gallagher is the first I have read to point out that the series on Chiquita Banana was essentially correct. After the Stephen Glass fiasco opened the can of worms that led Time and CNN to crawl out, along with Boston Globe columnist Patricia Smith, I was disappointed to hear about the Cincinnati Enquirer's debasing public apology and huge cash settlement. But what really bothered me about that incident was that the paper was forced to eat its words even while it refused to say they were wrong. A careful reading of the apology, the story and the public statements from both the paper and the corporation made it clear to me that in fact, the story was completely correct. Gallagher did what good reporters do: He dug around in the dirt that the corporate fat cats would prefer remain undisturbed, and he emerged with Chiquita Banana's dirty laundry. While I cannot condone his minor legal transgression, it seems a small crime compared to the egregious violations of Chiquita Banana. Whether he illegally obtained the voice mail tapes by himself or received them from an anonymous source is a subtle distinction. In one case he loses his job and faces national criticism; in the other, he is potentially nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. While Gallagher certainly deserves a public tongue-lashing for his apparent pilfering of voice mail, Chiquita Banana deserves high praise for its skillful manipulation of the public and an international inquiry -- at least -- into its business practices. The real villain in this fiasco is the Cincinnati Enquirer, which failed to stand by a talented reporter who got the story right, and completely kowtowed to the interests of big business. -- Will Wade You don't have to be a journalism major to realize that the transgressions of reporter Mike Gallagher are minuscule compared to the corporate arrogance of Chiquita, which considers itself above the law in Central America, and is intent on turning Cincinnati into its own banana republic. Salon and Bruce Shapiro have done us a service by reporting that one of the best recent examples of investigative reporting is being erased from the public record by a newspaper that had its facts straight but its ethics askew. I can recall only one case of a newspaper's being successfully sued for libel for printing a story that was factually correct: Mobil Oil's judgment against the Washington Post a few years back. But it was later overturned by an appeals judge named Kenneth Starr, who is now pursuing a criminal case against the president of the United States based on -- and this will confuse Mike Gallagher -- illegally recorded phone messages. -- Chuck Meyer Austin, Texas
_______________AUTHOR, AUTHOR! BY JONATHAN BRODER (07/08/98)
	Since the Lewinsky scandal took over the news, Salon has done an excellent job of overhyping minor nuggets of information as evidence that Kenneth Starr is a maniac bent on destroying the president, but this time you have gone too far. Jonathan Broder's article on the "talking points" summarizes the theories of other journalists on the origins of the document. (Summarizing other journalists is what Broder does best.) There are several suspects for authorship of the talking points, but not one serious journalist (and not even Broder) alleges that Mr. Starr had anything to do with the points. So why did Salon tease the article by asking if the talking points were a "White House crime or Starr dirty trick?" By implying on the front page that Starr may have been behind the talking points, even though the article does not contain a single word to that effect, Salon has finally abandoned all pretense of integrity. If Salon's editors have any capacity for shame remaining, however slight, you should be feeling it right now. -- Shane Ham Editor's note: Due to an editing error, we ran an inaccurate cover line for Jonathan Broder's July 8 article, "Author, Author!" As soon as we discovered our mistake, we corrected the cover line. Salon regrets the error. N E X T+P A G E+\| Horowitz: Champion of racial equality or shameless race-baiter?