Sunday, February 20, 2005

Gannon suing Kos? Newsweek intimates...

Talk about the scandal that keeps on giving.  Newsweek reports that Gannon is considering suing "...liberal interest groups, bloggers and others for a "political assassination" that drove him from his job as a reporter for a conservative news outfit called Talon News..."

In the Newsweek article Gannon specifically targets:

Media Matters--a "well-funded" liberal group headed by longtime "attack dog" David Brock. ("Everything we wrote about him came from the public record," Brock replied.)

Although Kos isn't specifically mentioned, let's face it: Propagannon broke at dKos and on AmericaBlog, and if Gannon's talking about suing "liberal bloggers" it doesn't take two seconds to figure out who he's talking about.

Here's the questions at hand:

1. Who's going to step up to bat and cover Kos's legal expenses?

2. If this does become a legal action, Gannon will have to prove that this is libel, which means it would have to be inherently untrue. This might be a great opportunity to get to the bottom of who got Gannon into the White House press room and who paid him for being there, as a lot of this information could be subpoeaned in discovery.

Also, this potential legal action seems to have shades of Bruce Eberle, who has close business ties with Bobby Eberle's and who sued Animal People, a small magazine, after they published an unflattering article about him and his business practices. The parties settled.

It's my opinion that even though Kos may not be "well funded", Gannon and backers may sue him anyway out of spite.

Here's an excerpt from Eberle's statement on the settlement:

“It was time consuming. It was costly. But we prevailed. Truth and justice were the victors. Merritt Clifton, his wife, Kim Bartlett, and their publication, Animal People, signed a settlement agreement and issued a retraction and apology in order to end the lawsuit filed against them by Fund Raising Strategies and myself. It is indeed unfortunate that it was necessary for me and my company, Fund Raising Strategies to resort to legal action in this matter. I bear no animosity for Mr. Clifton. I accept his word and written assurance that there will be no further attempts to interfere with the business relationships FRS has with its clients or with prospective clients. In fact, as I stated in my original e-mail to him on July 24, 2000, he and I share a passion for animal welfare. And, in spite of the fact that we may have honest differences of opinion regarding a sanctuary’s approach to fund raising, we do share a desire to see wildlife welfare organizations funded efficiently and honestly. There is absolutely no substitute for integrity, especially in the fund raising process.” With that statement, Bruce Eberle announced the conclusion of his lengthy litigation against Mr. Clifton and related parties.

And here's Animal People's take on the settlement:

Obtaining several specific corrections and clarifications that ANIMAL PEOPLE had already made, to the extent that available information allowed, Eberle and FRS received no retractions of main coverage, no damages or costs, no admission of their allegations of libel and tortious interference in business relationships, and--in tacit recognition that Eberle and one of his major clients contributed to whatever errors were made through their own inaccurate remarks--no apology.

By way of future conditions, ANIMAL PEOPLE agreed only to obey the same laws of the state of Virginia that apply at all times to all news media.

None of the corrections involved material published in exposes focused on Eberle and Fund Raising Strategies, the longest of which were "Would you buy an appeal from fundraiser Bruce Eberle?" and "Mississippi sanctuarian tries to quit 'sharecropping' for fundraiser," published in September and October 2000, accessible at this site.

Each correction of published material involved an incidental mention in items focused on other topics. The corrections pertain to fewer than 160 words, of more than 17,000 words about Eberle appearing since 2000 in ANIMAL PEOPLE, The Watchdog Report on Animal Protection Charities, and miscellaneous appeals and promotional items.

In statistical terms, no fault was found in 99.2% of the total volume of ANIMAL PEOPLE coverage mentioning Eberle and FRS either directly or implicitly.

Animal People's article that got Eberle so riled up is here:

Seriously...don't think that just because Kos isn't "well funded" doesn't mean these people wouldn't sue him.

At 9:13 PM, Blogger grannyhelen said...



Post a Comment

<< Home