Subject: Re: Media Inquiry
From: Brent Budowsky <[email-masked]>
To: "Rhoades Ha, Danielle" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Eileen Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:15:43 -0400

Danielle, please clarify one thing, and please share this with Ms. Ryan, your bureau chief in
Washington. CNN just reported that Schweizer is "partnering with the New York Times" for his book, but your reply stated only that the Times had access to some material in the book."  Is the "partnership" limited to Schweitzer giving the Times the equivalent of a review copy of the book, i.e. an advance copy?  Or is there something more that comprises this "partnership"?

Here is my problem with this that I will write about, once I get the facts correct.  I have no
problem with a partisan Republican writer/operative writing a book about "Clinton cash";
nor do I have a problem if his sources include Republican oppo research teams; nor do I
have a problem with Amy Chozick writing a story that cited the book and repeated old news
that was known before her story which included no new "news" except for the fact there
is a book, even if Chozick's story was a de facto book promotion story.  I do have a
problem with Chozick opining in her news story that the Schweitzer book takes on some
theoretical importance because he is "partnering" with the Times, Fox News, etc.

My problem would be if the NYT has some sort of partnership, relationship, with such a
hard-core partisan book that makes the NYT an effective agent of, or collaborator with,
a partisan political operator or operation seeking to influence an election.  The places
the NYT reputation and clout on the side of a partisan political project, as opposed to
merely receiving an advance copy and then doing independent news stories.  

Please note, a) while I am a columnist who supports Hillary Clinton I have publicly written
critically of foreign donations to the Clinton foundation, and b) while I am a columnist in the
opinion section of the paper I have higher standards for fact-checking than many beat
reporters in the news sections that cover politics, which is why I am investing the time to
get this story right.

I am trying to resolve the contradiction between your response yesterday, and Chozick's
suggestion in her story that the Times, Fox News, etc have some "exclusive" arrangements
(Chozik's description) with Schweizer  and that these relationships make the book "more
unsettling" (Chozik's description).  In law school we called this the "ipsi dipsi", that a
partisan book should have more credibility because of an exclusive relationship with a
nonpartisan newspaper that denies to me that such a relationship exists, which puts
the NYT in the position of giving its imprimatur to the credibility of a partisan attack, which
I can understand with Fox News but not the New York Times.

For now I am simply trying to ascertain one fact: what beyond an early copy of the book
constitutes the relationship that exists between the NYT and the author?

My thanks.

Brent 

Sent from my iPad

> On Apr 20, 2015, at 1:51 PM, Rhoades Ha, Danielle <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Brent -
> 
> Eileen forwarded your query.  
> 
> I can confirm that there was no payment of any sort. Please attribute the response below to Carolyn Ryan, Washington, DC bureau chief and Political editor, The New York Times. It represents our response on the matter.
> 
> "We had access to some material in the book, but we wanted to do our own reporting."​
> 
> Danielle
> 
> Danielle Rhoades Ha
> Executive Director, Communications
> The New York Times Company
> O: 212-556-8719 M: 917-379-6928
> [email-masked]
> @daniellerha
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Brent Budowsky <[email-masked]>
> Date: Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 9:27 AM
> Subject: Media Inquiry
> To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> 
> 
> Ms. Murphy, my name is Brent Budowsky, columnist for The Hill newspaper in Washington. For
> an upcoming column I have a question:
> 
> Mr. Peter Schweizer will soon be publishing a book "Clinton Cash" etc. which makes serious
> allegations against Bill and Hillary Clinton.  In her story about this book dated April 19, your
> reporter Amy Chozick includes the following:  "But 'Clinton Cash' is potentially more unsettling, both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author  to pursue the story lines found in the book."
> 
> My question to the New York Times is: exactly what is this exclusive agreement between
> Mr. Schweizer and the New York Times?  Is their any compensation to be offered by the New
> York Times to Mr. Schweizer or his publisher, or any compensation offered to the New York
> Times, by Mr. Schweizer or his publisher, in any form?  In other words what exactly is the quid
> pro quo of this arrangement?
> 
> The working title of my column will be "Holy War against Hillary Clinton", and one of my topics
> will be the relationship between the conservative and Republican media infrastructure that
> organizes these attacks, which is certainly their right, and how the major media reports on these
> attacks.
> 
> This inquiry is purely fact-checking an effort to be accurate and fair in my column.  I seek to
> ascertain the nature and details of the "exclusive relationship" between the NYT and the
> author and publisher of this book, and I will be candid and tell you I find this relationship
> strange and troubling.  Normally an author publishes a book, and news organizations assign
> reporters to report on the content of the book without collusion or compensation beyond the
> normal book promotion and reporter/author relationships.
> 
> I may well request a formal interview with Mr. Baquet to discuss this "relationship", but for now
> I would appreciate in the spirit of fact-checking and fairness the details of this "relationship."
> 
> I can be reached via this email and at (202) 296-6177.
> 
> In advance I appreciate your consideration,
> 
> Brent Budowsky
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
>