More info on 60 Min. Siegelman piece...

UPDATE AT BOTTOM

Glyn Wilson, over at Locust Fork has some CBS sources. I have been sent snippets of Wilson's entry, because the site appears to be down, but from what I gather, Wilson appears to confirm  what I have been told about the WH and Sessions pressuring CBS to kill the story. Wilson also reports - again, I am getting this from other blogs in snips and in email in snips - that the network intends to run the story anyway. 

My sources are saying, however, that while the shows producers and reporters are of the belief that the story is going to run - and it is in fact complete and signed off on btw - that it is CBS corporate that is the issue. In any case, the point about WH pressure being confirmed by Wilson's sources underscores why the public needs to continue their own push-back.  Here are some question to ask CBS about this story as well as other named interests:

For CBS:

1. You have been working on this story for over six months. It is finished and signed off on by the editors and producers. Why not give the public a date then for when the story will air? Issue a statement on the record that the story will run, when it will run, and that it will run without cuts from corporate. It is all well and good to play anonymous source, but given that you are journalists, it makes you look less than honest when you cannot put your name to your comments.

2. What type of pressure are the White House and Jeff Sessions exerting over you and over what key element in the story? Should that not be part of the story as well?

3.  Why vet Simpson again if the story is already in the "can," as they say?

4. Has CBS corporate given the green light for this story to air yet?

For Jeff Sessions:

1. Why are you pressuring a national news show to kill a story?
2. What is your involvement in the Siegelman affair?
3. If you are not involved in trying to kill this story, then say so on the record.

For the WH:       

1. What makes you think you have the right to kill a news story? If you are not pressuring CBS, then debunk these allegations on the record.

Remember folks that sources for the 60 Min piece risked a great deal and in good faith, believing that their story would be told and that they would be protected by the airing of the story.  There is no other network waiting behind the curtain should 60 Minutes not air or alter their story before it does air.  So these sources are sitting ducks, out in the open, exposed without the cover of light. This story must run and it must run soon.

Keep up the pressure folks. You are clearly being heard if folks over at CBS have to comment anonymously to defend themselves.

On a final note, here are some letters sent to CBS by at-largely readers.

Patrick writes:

"Wow – what a disappointment!

I knew that most of the mainstream media outlets are easily influenced by the Bush White House; they lack the resources, guts, and integrity to follow this particular story.

But to think that 60 Minutes is also afraid to pursue it stuns me, when it clearly follows the template established by Karl Rove in Texas (see the books “Bush’s Brain” and “The Architect” by James Moore and Wayne Slater, especially how Rove used spurious corruption charges against political opponents of the candidate for whom he was consulting, which resulted in prison sentences), a template that has been adapted to work in the so-called “voter fraud” scandal campaign orchestrated by the White House and Republicans in Congress – which mutated into the US Attorney firings; and don’t forget to consider the current federal corruption trial here in Pittsburgh, where the US Attorney indicted former Allegheny County Coroner / Medical Examiner Dr. Cyril Wecht on 80+ charges – both serious ones and some that were not-so-serious (such as sending private faxes from work) – half of which were dropped days before the trial started.

In my American Political Process course, I used to teach about the importance of the media as the Fourth Estate and about how it performs an important oversight function over the other three branches of our government. I am saddened to say that the advent of Fox News, checkbook journalism, and the emphasis on access to the political elite have undermined my own confidence in the viability of that interpretation. The ratings chase seems to have taken priority over the news media’s ability to get and tell interesting and important stories and to keep our government honest.

As long as “60 Minutes“ didn’t bow to such pressures, I could still give that lecture with a straight face.

However, your treatment of Dan Rather after the National Guard story gave me pause. And now, your scuttling of the Siegelman imprisonment story demonstrates that you lack the guts that you once had.

Moreover, your rejection of this story under pressure from an obviously partisan US Senator, who is clearly carrying water for the Bush White House, is tantamount to your own participation in the cover-up of the White House’s involvement in a politically motivated prosecution. This means that you have lost not only your guts, but your integrity.

It is stunning and disheartening to me, and also quite ironic to have learned about this today, the same day as the British press reported that President Vladimir Putin has put one of his political opponents in a mental asylum to shut him up. My students will read this story today, and in class on Friday we will discuss whether this is an indication that Russia is becoming a police state. I can guess what their consensus response will be.

What will they say about America, however, when they read about the Siegelman story? Or will they even get a chance to read about it in a local or even national newspaper, if 60 Minutes or other mainstream investigative outlets fail to report on it?

Please reconsider your decision and cover this story – sooner rather than later. It is one that needs to be told, and it should be told well before the coming November election. Don’t make the same mistake as you did on the National Guard story, holding it until just before the election, which would give your critics the ammunition they need to claim that you are propagandizing and politicking. By the same token, don’t make the “NY Times mistake” – holding the story for a year (e.g. “warrantless wiretapping”) so as not to influence voters before an election. Cover it now, when voters will be able to absorb it, think about it, and decide over the next months what weight to give it while evaluating presidential and congressional candidates. This will also force the candidates from both parties to go on the record with their position on the story."

----

Keith Blevins writes:

"How sad that an American institution with the history and reputation of 60 Minutes has sunk to being just another propaganda arm of the White House.

How do y'all sleep at night, knowing that you have it within your power to help right an enormous wrong, and yet cave into political pressure from the wrongdoers?

Dana Jill Simpson had her home burnt down and was forced off the road under suspicious circumstances, and yet SHE is the one who is being investigated now? Come on. You know how these folks work. They are doing all they can to keep the lid on this blatant miscarriage of justice and you're playing into their hands? Disgraceful.

By the way, there is a fresh case of Alabama political prosecution being committed by Alice Martin. You can read all about it in Harpers

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002293

How many more innocent people need to be imprisoned for having the audacity to be popular Democratic politicians in a state the GOP is trying to take over?

You are disgusting.  And just as guilty now as the criminals in the White House."

---

Gerard Pierce writes:

"For years I relied on 60 minutes as a trustworthy example of "investigative journalism". You weren't that deeply investigative, but you were honest.

Your coverage of the Duke students surprised me a little when I noticed that one of the two women accusers had completely disappeared from your coverage. The unacknowleged influence of one of the boys fathers was also a little supprising but the story seems to have mostly been presented honestly.

I did still have some concerns as to what might have influenced the coverage that was presented, but not enough to decide that you were the bad guys.

Your decision to "table" the Siegelman story and to await political efforts to "investigate" Jill Simpson is finally a tipping point. Something really evil has happened at 60 minutes.

If Senator Sessions is part of the "investigation", this should not prompt 60 minutes to cancel the story. In an honest journalistic endeavor, Sessions would become part of the story.

Your viewers would want to know what he is doing in this case and who is giving him his marching orders.

In view of the efforts of our "Department of Justice" to use the power of the law for political ends, the Siegelman story should scream for attention.

Instead, 60 minutes has become one more American institution to cave in to the powers that be. And if I pay attention to any of your coverage, I now have to consider what political influence is distorting the news.

It's a crying shame."

There are plenty more all over the Internet and also here, at-largely you can read. Feel free to share your letters here in the comments.

##

UPDATE:

Okay, for some reason I can now access Locust Fork. I have read Wilson's piece, which appears to be based on conversations with four - yes, that many - anonymous CBS sources or sources "much closer to the process." Again, I have to ask why CBS sources, that is, journalists have to anonymously confirm something or debunk something.

Also, Wilson appears to not accurately cite what I wrote, or even who I am:

"An earlier report from a blog reporter who sometimes publishes on the liberal online news site Raw Story said the show’s producers are “killing” the story due to pressure from the White House, the Riley administration and Senator Jeff Sessions. That set off another round of speculation on the Web and on e-mail lists."

Here is exactly what I said (should Wilson feel it necessary to actually read what I wrote):

"Well folks, seems that 60 Minutes is postponing (read "killing") its Siegelman story. The excuse I am told for this lapse in ethics is that the network needs more time to vet the whistle-blower, Dana Jill Simpson. You see, the reason the network suddenly needs more time to vet Simpson is that the White House has launched a direct campaign inside CBS to discredit her and just to make sure the dirt sticks, they have called in some favors too.  I am told that Senator Jeff Sessions has been instructed to help the White House discredit Simpson as part of his "Senatorial" duties."

Although Wilson later confirms that there has White House pressure, Wilson does not ask any of the key questions. Is Simpson being re-vetted, for example?

Finally, Wilson does not remotely explain who I am and in fact actually does not include information as to why what I wrote was taken so seriously by the blogs and news outlets. When Wilson writes "sometimes publishes on the liberal online news site Raw Story" in describing me, Wilson omits all of the important and accurate information.

I don't "sometimes publish" on Raw Story. I am the managing editor of investigative news for Raw Story. I also have been working the Siegelman story in a series of which three  articles are already published and reprinted all over the place. But I will let people do the Google thing and see for themselves why describing me as "a reporter blogger" is incredibly misleading on Wilson's part.

Having said all that, I repeat once again that CBS needs to put out a statement indicating when they will air this story. They also need to address the major claims I wrote in my blog entry cited above - as does Wilson I might add. If my sources are wrong on this, then CBS should have no problem debunking the allegations point by point.

Comments

[Glynn Wilson]

Apply for a job, with you? You must be out of your mind completely. I just meant if your readers want the facts, they should come on over to a site where they can find them.

And I believe in addition to doing real journalism, a person should have fun in the world. I was trying to be nice. Betting the Yuengling is something I do for fun, often on political races, and I rarely lose. I see you don't even believe your own reporting on this enough to take the bet.

You didn't name your sources, so they were anonymous, but from what you are reporting, they are either non-existent or don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

Your response is so crazy, I've now taken all links to Raw Story and your blog off my site. I provide a site with links to credible information. From what I can tell, you don't have any...

RESPONSE FROM LARISA ALEXANDROVNA
Wilson, this is becoming absurd. First of all, I did not report, but rather conveyed on my private blog what a few people were letting me know. That said, I stand firmly behind what I posted here. The reason why I am declining to take you up on your wager is that I am hoping the damn story runs, so if I were to win, we would all lose. I am hoping the pressure from the public will turn this around. You prove once again that for you this is about "winning" something. That is truly a sad.

The rest of your comment is idiotic at best. Thanks for removing me and RS from your site. Really... your ego needs more room to stretch out. And then you wonder why people think you are "crazy," "aggressive," "once was someone I respected," etc., comment I have heard about you. If you consider what I wrote and your incredibly deranged response, clearly the general opinion of you starts to make perfect sense. If it makes you feel any better, I will remove you as well.

This story is not about you. Get that. If it runs, it will be because of the people who had the courage to speak out. You did some fine work on this early on, with that I agree, but your interest was always you, never the story, which is why you have alienated so many people. If you can bring yourself to get a grip and understand that we are all on the same side, fighting for the story to air, then you might show that you are not as self-absorbed as everyone thinks. Beyond that, I have nothing else to say to you. Your behavior is unprofessional, childish, and almost stalker like. Go back to your work and leave mine to me. If the story does run, you can celebrate with your mirror. I will be celebrating because it ran and for no other reason. Please don't post here again. Your comments on the topic of the case are fine, your childish tantrum is really inappropriate. Until you learn to control yourself, I ask that you not post here again.

You are welcome to come back when you have gotten yourself under some control.

[Glynn Wilson]

Your reporting on this is way off base.

I didn't want to get into it with you and I've been on the road today and not keeping up with everything, but since you decide to try and defend yourself by slandering me, your readers should know the people in the room who know what's going on at 60 Minutes (as opposed to your alleged anonymous sources) and the people actually involved in this story, are laughing at you.

My real report is accurate, and in fact, you are a blog reporter who publishes at Raw Story. To brag about being the managing editor of something that gets it so wrong is not such a great title.

You are a late comer to this story. I've published three of the most definitive stories on it yet, including the top story in The Nation magazine about it, fully funded with an investigative reporting grant.

You and I had an e-mail conversation about this when you finally got on to covering this story, months after I had already nailed it. I was in Washington with Jill Simpson when she testified, and did the interview with Doug Jones that ended up getting him called to testify.

So if you have readers here who are interested in the facts, and if Raw Story is interested in solid reporting, you know where to find me.

My free-lance experience includes the New York Times national desk, the Christian Science Monitor, Dallas Morning News and some of the best alternative weeklies in the country, including Gambit Weekly in New Orleans.

Also years with the old UPI and newspapers before that, and a number of Websites for the past 10 years - not to mention all those degrees and teaching experience, including tenure track at Loyola New Orleans before Katrina.

Trafficking in rumor and innuendo and trying to get people fired up to call 60 Minutes is not investigative journalism.

Wait until you see the show here in the next few weeks...

Want to bet a 12-pack of Yuengling on whether the show runs or not? Put your beer money where your keyboard is, baby.

Any more of this kind of slander and I'll have to do a number on your under the Locust Fork River bridge, on the blog that is.

You can do better.

RESPONSE FROM LARISA ALEXANDROVNA
Whoah there little doggie. There are sedatives for your condition. Not sure how I slandered you, but I am sure there are medications for your hallucinations as well. You 4 anonymous insiders are applauding your manly efforts. By the way, I did not claim anonymous sources. Oh, if people are laughing at me, you may wish to not be seen posting here, in case you too might catch the cooties.

If RS is interested in freelance work on this story, it would be through whom ever I bring on and since you claim people are laughing at me, I find it astonishing that you are applying for a job. Learn how to deal with your ego and then maybe we can talk.

Oh and one more thing, while I appreciate the rather strange beer offer after you went bat-shit-crazy on me, the reality is that I want the show to run. I don't care about betting who is right or wrong. If the show runs, then we all have won and all can share a beer. That is the difference between us. You see everything as an attack on you and you feel the need to be proven right. I don't share that concern. My concern is simply that the story air.