<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>




































































  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
      <title>Comments On: Eichenwald v. Nathan
    
      by Michael Miner</title>
      <link>http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/03/12/eichenwald-v-nathan</link>
      <atom:link href="http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/Rss.xml?oid=943230&amp;id=comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />      <description>Comments On: Eichenwald v. Nathan
    
      by Michael Miner</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2009 Chicago Reader. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Chicago Reader readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Chicago Reader.</copyright>
      <webMaster>wil@desert.net (Chicago Reader Webmaster)</webMaster>
      <pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0600</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:30:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Foundation</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Eichenwald v. Nathan]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/03/12/eichenwald-v-nathan/#953270]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/03/12/eichenwald-v-nathan/#953270]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[Mike]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[According to Debbie Nathan she approached Kurt Eichenwald in a courthouse hallway asking to interview him about certain "discrepancies" in his original article. He refused the interview, and the next day threatened to sue her for libel. This alone gives me reason to believe that he has something to hide.
    
    My letter to Romenesko was one of the analytical responses that you referred to in your column. I pointed out that that the professional journalists should investigate the relationship, if any, between Eichenwald's "donation" of $2000 and Justin Berry's re-entry into the world of webcam porn 10 days later. I stated that I had confirmed the date of Berry's reactivation of his porn site (June 19, 2005) through an internet search that had taken only about 45 minutes.
    
    Romenesko's letters are widely read among professional journalists. It has been 2 days since my letter appeared. The response so far has been "Big Whoop".  I have received a single e-mail in response to my letter. It was from a columnist who is well-known, but, at the same time, is at the edge of professional journalism.  She stated that questions about Eichenwald's article have been discussed privately ever since it first ran, but that no-one has been willing to investigate the matter for fear of offending the Times or because they find the subject matter distasteful. I did not receive a single e-mail from any journalist indicating that they had even checked out my claim.
    
    As kids we are taught that the American press can be trusted because it is "self-policing". That's clearly a load.  When it comes to one of their own, professional journalists have a "code of omerta" that makes the mafia's look like a playground cross-my-heart.
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by Mike]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2007 02:32:21 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Eichenwald v. Nathan]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/03/12/eichenwald-v-nathan/#956885]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/03/12/eichenwald-v-nathan/#956885]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[NG]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Not that it means anything to you, but news of this check first surfaced in article written by Tim Richards and published on QueerPlanet. A few days later, redacted images of the check was posted online.  
    
    Of course, some are still wanting very much to give Eichenwald the benefit of the doubt.  I understand why that's so.  After all, who would want to accept the word of a convicted felon?
    
    But, the question you should be asking and as yet haven't is why did Justin Berry's website come back online ten days after Eichenwald's check infusion?
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by NG]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:06:45 -0500</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
      
    </channel>
  </rss>




