_______________ SALON'S COVERAGE OF THE CLINTON CRISIS (01/21/98 - 04/13/98)

Your article "The men who kept Paula Jones' lawsuit going" contained numerous inaccuracies regarding the role of Landmark Legal Foundation in obtaining representation for Mrs. Jones. While Landmark Legal Foundation has frequently spoken out in support of Mrs. Jones' right to pursue her lawsuit against the President, the foundation never represented Mrs. Jones in that lawsuit. Neither did the foundation help Mrs. Jones find attorneys Joseph Cammarata and Gil Davis. Landmark, in fact, also played no role in Mrs. Jones' decision to select Mssrs. Cammarata and Davis. Nor did the foundation, in any way, directly or indirectly, assist in financing Mrs. Jones' lawsuit as is inferred in the article. When Landmark was contacted concerning representation of Mrs. Jones, the foundation declined to do so. Furthermore, when Landmark refused to participate in Mr. Waas' article, Mr. Waas harassed us with numerous telephone calls. Mr. Waas, on two separate occasions, then threatened our president, Mark Levin, and me with a libel lawsuit. While journalistic objectivity is only a fantasy at your publication, I would suggest that you do more to confirm the information you publish and control the individuals you dispatch to gather that data on your behalf. We will continue our policy of declining to assist Mr. Waas as long as his unprofessional conduct continues. -- Eric Christensen Vice President for Development and Communications Landmark Legal Foundation Salon editors respond: Salon and its reporter, Murray Waas, stand by our story, which stated that Landmark Legal Foundation played a role in supporting Paula Jones' legal efforts. Our reporting of Landmark's involvement was based on interviews with sources and backed up by contemporaneous notes obtained by Salon. Jones' first lawyer, Daniel Traylor, confirmed that he had several contacts with Landmark. One of Traylor's successors as Jones' attorney, Gilbert Davis, told Salon that he had held discussions about the Jones case with Landmark officials. In his letter, Eric Christensen writes that Landmark "never represented Mrs Jones in that lawsuit." Salon never said that it did. Christensen adds: "Nor did the foundation, in any way, directly or indirectly, assist in financing Mrs Jones' lawsuit as is inferred in the article." No such assertion is either stated or implied in the article. Christensen's charges of harassment are as groundless as the Paula Jones harassment case that Christensen admits Landmark supported. As any proper reporter would do, Waas tried on more than one occasion to get comment from Landmark before the story was published. Landmark refused. Later, after his story appeared in Salon, Waas phoned a Landmark official to protest a press release issued by Landmark -- with Christensen listed as the press contact -- containing utterly false and baseless charges that Salon was in "collusion" with the Justice Department, a U.S. attorney in Arkansas, former Arkansas Sen. David Pryor and the White House. Waas did so with the approval of Salon editors. Congratulations to Murray Waas, Jonathan Broder, Gene Lyons, et al. for breaking the "secret money" story of Richard Mellon Scaife and his connection to David Hale. While Salon readers knew how to break $100 bills in Arkansas weeks ago, the New York Times finally caught up to this story in today's paper. The Times' defensive stance of Ken Starr, however, leaves little more than trepidation for the reader. Instead of deeper investigation into the Hale allegations, the story's focus is on a supposed "conflict" between Eric Holder, deputy attorney general, and Starr with Michael Shaheen, a former Department of Justice official. Shaheen is being recommended by Starr to look into the possible conflict of interest. So now, thanks to the Times, yet another big legal battle is set. All we're missing at the end of the article is a zippy tag line set in an eye-catching, italic font, stating something to the effect of "STAY TUNED to the Times as the latest legal brouhaha continues ..." Cue music and fade, I suppose. Is this where "the paper of record" falls in journalistic substance? Thankfully, I have heard the entire course of events from Salon that the Times rehashes in today's edition in the last few weeks. And even more thankfully, I will not have to "stay tuned" to the endless baiting that the Times now adheres to in writing a story. -- Michael Harmanos For a long while, I admired the balanced coverage of the various investigations into Clinton's escapades, and politics in general. But, lately ... Did Scaife cut off funding to Salon, or did you find some other reasons to become an arm of the Clinton spin machine? Let's just say that Bruce Shapiro and Joe Conason are not exactly skeptical journalists, unless the subjects of their articles happen to be Republicans, or someone willing to give negative testimony about President Diggler. This is disappointing for the 30 percent of the public who think the president, as the chief law enforcer, ought to be held to a higher standard than anyone else, or at least ought not to direct cronies to pay off witnesses with jobs in cities that are conveniently located beyond the reach of a subpoena. Despite the obvious indications of witness tampering by Clinton, your columnists devote their time exclusively to far less compelling allegations involving David Hale, even though there is no evidence that Ken Starr is aware of any payments, much less whether they were intended to change Hale's testimony. The hypocrisy of this myopic coverage is a little much, especially from apparently intelligent people who ought to be able to see that all of their frantic efforts are made on behalf of the biggest liar since Nixon. The most hilarious and disturbing theme is that Starr's inquiry is "in trouble" because the Paula Jones case has been dismissed. As if this would excuse witness tampering by the president. I've got news for you. It's still a felony -- even if you're a Democrat! So maybe Kenny still has some work to do. Which is exactly what Shapiro and Conason are afraid of, I think. They act as if they know all of the evidence that's been presented to the grand jury. But I suspect that not everything has been leaked, and if we ever hear the rest of the evidence, it will comprise a fairly damning circumstantial case of witness tampering and perjury. After all, now that Clinton has admitted to lying about the nature of his relationship with Gennifer Flowers, we know that he's willing to lie about anything if he can get some short-term benefit. I don't expect to agree with all of your columnists, or very many of them. But I'd still like to believe they were equally suspicious of people from both ends of the political spectrum. Instead, they seem to be even more pathetically self-deceiving than Hillary. Or perhaps, like Hillary, none of them are deceived, but just willing to appear that way for some prospective personal benefit. -- Brian O'Connor I have been reading with ever increasing interest and appreciation your various stories on the Office of "independent" council's investigation of President Clinton. In most cases you seem to have been picking my own brains. A thought has occurred to me though that I have not seen addressed yet. Could it possibly be that the real goal in appointing Starr was not so much to bring down Clinton, but to cover up some far more important things involving Republicans and right-wing conservatives such as Scaife? Starr taking over the investigation of L. Jean Lewis right after his appointment is certainly suspicious, as is the fact nothing has been heard of it since. But why was she appointed to investigate the Madison Bank, when there were many other larger failed institutions in Arkansas that were never investigated at all? There was also a much larger failed institution headed by one of George Bush's sons that seems to have escaped notice. Might the cover-up of the Lewis investigation have been to cover-up the failure to properly investigate other institutions? If the real intent of Starr was to cover up Republican and conservative involvement in the savings and loan fiasco, it would explain a lot of otherwise inexplicable things. Such as his heavy-handed and controversial investigative manner, going over stuff former independent council Fiske had covered, prolonging the investigations interminably and never coming up with anything concrete. Perhaps Salon has only begun to scratch the surface. -- Arthur Cannon Thank you for providing a counterbalance to the Republican Scandal machine. Keep it up. I wonder if MSGOP will now headline each new day with: Ken Starr, Independent Counsel in Crisis! Bumper sticker I want to see this fall: Impeach Congress: Vote Democratic. -- William Alverson SALON | April 15, 1998

R E C E N T L Y+| PROPELLERHEADS: DECKSANDDRUMSANDROCKANDROLL BY GINA ARNOLD (04/07/98)

If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor for publication,
please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com.
Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness.
If you do not wish the letter to be published, please say so.