The Phoenix Network:
About  |  Advertise
Adult  |  Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures
Media -- Dont Quote Me  |  News Features  |  Talking Politics  |  This Just In

Sleazy? Yes. Criminal? Probably not.

The New York Times has grown so gullible that it believed the spin on the Page Six scandal
By HARVEY SILVERGLATE  |  April 12, 2006

PAGE SIX: It would not be easy to find a jury of 12 ordinary citizens as gullible as The Times' editors. As anyone attuned to sleaze and sensationalism is aware, the scandalmongers at the New York Post’s Page Six are themselves engulfed in a scandal of tsunami-like proportions — at least in the world where reality is defined by People, Us, Star, and the National Enquirer.

The Post’s Gotham-tabloid rival, the Daily News, is having predictable sport with the story. And the good, gray New York Times has also pulled out all the stops. As the Wall Street Journal rather archly noted on Tuesday, the Times had so far published more words on this subject (10,865) than even the News (6588).

It tells us something about the central place of gossip in our national life when the self-proclaimed paper of record dedicates this much real estate to such a story. But when you look at how the Times reported the story, framed the issues, and internalized the central points the story’s leakers clearly had in mind, you realize that the Times isn’t exercising the independent judgment one expects from a paper with its history and pretensions.

There is a story here, but it’s about media ethics, not the federal crime of extortion. Because federal prosecutors are involved, the Times is treating this as a criminal case. It’s not. Rather, the Times has adopted the mind-set of federal prosecutors and the “victim’s” legal team: if it’s ugly, it can be twisted and spun to appear to fit the definition of some federal crime.

Naughty boy
New York Post gossip writer Jared Paul Stern became fodder for national gossip himself last Saturday when the New York Times (the Daily News was off and running with the story the day before) ran a sensationalized story about him on page one, above the fold, consuming one-third of the page and complete with a scandal-sheet-style photographic montage of the major players. This was followed by another page-one story, on Sunday, accompanied by a grainy surreptitious-surveillance video frame.

What exactly did Stern do? According to news reports, a private-investigative firm hired by supermarket magnate Ron Burkle captured Stern on secretly recorded video in Burkle’s TriBeCa loft. On the tape, Stern appears to be asking for a $100,000 initial payment plus $10,000 a month, ominously described by the Times as a “monthly stipend ... in return for keeping negative information about [Burkle] out of the [Post].” Burkle, 53, had earlier claimed in letters to the Post that embarrassing Page Six stories describing him as a “party-boy billionaire” who dated supermodel Gisele Bundchen, among other women, and went through an ugly breakup were false. So he arranged to meet Stern at a Manhattan hotel last summer, “after a friend suggested Mr. Stern could give him some insight into Page Six.” At that meeting, Burkle alleges, Stern asked him to become a source for Stern’s gossip pieces. Burkle reportedly declined, but agreed to buy 60 shirts from Stern’s clothing line “as a favor.” Burkle’s lawyer, Martin D. Singer, then lodged a number of litigation threats against the paper, all to no avail. However, the story goes on, “an employee of Mr. Burkle’s received an e-mail message from Mr. Stern, a contributor who worked two days a week for Page Six, suggesting that Mr. Burkle could change the column’s treatment of him.”

1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |   next >
Related: Gossip columnist escapes indictment, Notes on a scandal, Southern discomfort, More more >
  Topics: News Features , Celebrity News, Entertainment, Federal Bureau of Investigation,  More more >
  • Share:
  • Share this entry with Facebook
  • Share this entry with Digg
  • Share this entry with Delicious
  • RSS feed
  • Email this article to a friend
  • Print this article
Sleazy? Yes. Criminal? Probably not.
I'd say the NYT is handling this story quite properly. It's true that blackmail seems to require a threat to do something unless some payment or action is taken. And it's true that Stern doesn't seem to be doing that. It's also true that he's saying he can prevent others from running false or negative stories. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd say that's awfully close. More important, however, extortion does not see to require a threatened action. From extortion n. obtaining money or property by threat to a victim's property or loved ones, intimidation, or false claim of a right (such as pretending to be an IRS agent). It is a felony in all states, except that a direct threat to harm the victim is usually treated as the crime of robbery. Blackmail is a form of extortion in which the threat is to expose embarrassing, damaging information to family, friends or the public.
By Dan Browning on 04/12/2006 at 4:48:27

Share this entry with Delicious
  •   THE GATES CASE ISN'T ABOUT RACE  |  August 05, 2009
    The weeks-long hubbub over the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis "Skip" Gates Jr. by the Cambridge Police Department has centered on race, understandably, for two reasons: 1) the African-American population has suffered inequitably in its relations with law enforcement across this country, and 2) a race story is easier for the media to tell — and to sell.
    In a 1957 Supreme Court decision upholding the free-speech rights of university professors ( Sweezy v. New Hampshire ), Justice Felix Frankfurter quoted prominent South African scholars on the importance of academic freedom.
  •   GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY  |  June 24, 2009
    The US Supreme Court's June 18 decision denying prisoners access to DNA testing — a procedure that could reliably prove innocence — adds to the high court's decades-long shameful record on criminal-justice issues.
  •   ROBOJUDGE  |  June 11, 2009
    Judge Stephen Breyer, Bill Clinton's latest pick for the Supreme Court, has attracted support so broad that it spans ideological and political differences.  
    Minutes after President Barack Obama announced that he was nominating appellate judge Sonia Sotomayor for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, battle lines were drawn on the pre-scripted questions of "post-racial" America.

 See all articles by: HARVEY SILVERGLATE

RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 

  |  Sign In  |  Register
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
Copyright © 2009 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group