Yesterday, I posted a story taking to task various media outlets and bloggers for spreading a false story concerning a statement State Senator Marty Connor was alleged to have made about congestion pricing. The story meticulously documented a sequence of events which made clear that the real meaning (and punctuation) of Connor’s statement was quite different from what had been reported, and that, in fact, it was his opponent, Daniel Squadron, who’d been obfuscating concerning his position on the issue.

Among the media outlets I mentioned was the Brooklyn Paper. I publicly announced that I had emailed the piece to Gersh Kuntzman, the paper’s Editor, and asked whether he would have the integrity to print a retraction. In context, it was clear that I thought it was quite possible that he would do so, since I also named several outlets and bloggers who I did not email, because it wasn’t worth the bother.

Mr. Kuntzman reacted angrily on the web, saying the story was “fair and accurate in every detail”.

I then sent him the cached text, captured before some important changes had taken place.

Mr. Kuntzman now writes:

"The version of the story that is on The Brooklyn Paper Web site is accurate and fair in every detail. A clarification will appear in our Aug. 23 print version to explain two minor problems with the print version that was published on Aug. 16."

I do not feel it would be proper to describe further the contents of our terse and tense email conversation, other than to say that I see no reason at this time not to believe that Mr. Kuntzman will make an attempt to address the issue in a manner which he believes to be fair. While I am keeping one foot firmly in Missouri, I really can’t ask for more than that.

By contrast, the "Brooklyn Heights Blog", confronted with a dare to publish my piece on the matter, said they would question Squadron on it during a future interview. I then responded that they had published the orginal accusation and they should publish my reponse. They then said, "to be honest, if that post was even slightly coherent we would". How then, if they didn't undertand it, were they going to raise the matter to Squadron? "To be honest" would clearly be a posture with which they are unfamiliar; disengenguous liars. It's currently the most-read piece on "Room 8", so apparently someone understands it.   

I should note that, in my article, I described the Brooklyn Paper as “anti-Connor“, which I based on over a decade of reading it in detail every week, and my personal conclusions concerning the views of its publisher, Ed Weintrob. This situation long preceded Mr. Kuntzman’s tenure as Editor, and the Connor story, as it first appeared, seemed to confirm that the situation persisted. That being said, the Brooklyn Paper also has had a rather admirable distaste for those who bamboozle or prevaricate the truth, even when those who do so otherwise embrace its publisher‘s agenda.

Therefore, I was wrong to create the impression that Mr. Kuntzman or his reporters have any bias. At best, that conclusion was based on incomplete and possibly misleading evidence; at worst, it is a falsehood, even if it was a falsehood without intent. But in this case, the best that can be said for my premature conclusions is just not good enough to justify having come to those conclusion in public at this time, so I must apologize, even if the possibility exists that, in a few days, I may regret having done so.

In an unrelated, yet perhaps karmic event, I was “permanently banned” today by the left-of-center site, the Daily Gotham. Although I started publishing on that site after a rather emphatic invitation from its publishers, I was uncomfortable from the start about whether my centrist (for lack of a better term) Democratic views, however partisan, were really suitable for the site. Clearly, events have proven that my qualms were well founded, and that we were not a good fit. I would be remiss if I did not thank Mole333, Liza Sabater and especially Michael Bouldin for their support during some dark days in my career as a blogger.

What makes this moment sad is that the ever escalating war of words between myself and Michael was the cause precedent to this situation. Much more than that I will not say, except to note the irony that the blogger there I came to blows with is the one whose general worldview most resembles my own (Mole once told me that he thought I may actually be more liberal than Michael).

I can only speculate on the causes of Michael’s need to pursue a what seemed to me to resemble a vendetta, often attacking me, rather than my views, making what I considered to be false accusations and misleading insinuations, and sometimes posting angry off-topic screeds on pieces of mine he likely had little, if any, problem with, as well as citing my name again and again as if I were emblematic of evil incarnate. Or maybe I just imagined this.

While I tried to ignore such provocations  (if that is what they were), not responding even when he put up a piece called “Gatemouth: Dishonest Schmuck”, eventually my anger got the best of me, and I cannot say that I am not without my share of responsibility for what ensued, maybe even the lion‘s share.

You are welcome to post your disagreement with that conclusion.

UPDATE: Michael Bouldin has published a response to this piece on the Daily Gotham.

I first want to thank Michael for his compliments to my awesome wife and son (see we do agree on most important matters) and for ackowledging that I may be more liberal than Rock Hackshaw. Of course, Rock rarely steps on the toes of any Bouldin favorites (although I have no dount that Rock is loaded for bear and waiting for such an opportunity), so the comparison between us is inapt. Strangely, the last time Rock had it out with Bouldin, I took Bouldin's side.   

Beyond that, Michael gives you his version of what transpired, with what I believe is sincere (but I've been proven wrong about this before) outrage.

All I can say is that we have a difference of opinion. To me, claiming this is about one particular incident is like saying that World War I was about the Duke's assasination. I may be wrong in this conclusion, but I don't buy it.

The first time I recall Michael removing a post of mine was November 18, 2007 (if there were any earlier incidents (and I'm not saying there weren't) I don't recall them. The November 18 piece (unlike the two which preceded them) was entirely inoffensive; it merely exploded the myth that Steve Harrison was the strongest possible candidate in the 13 CD by means of mathematical analysis (the same sort of ruthless analysis deployed against empty puffery that Bouldin used, with my approval, in a similar situation involving State Senate candidate Jimmy Dahroug). It was removed because of its politics.

Since I began the series of which that piece was a part, I have engaged in an ever-escalating war of words with Mr. Bouldin, from which I have often demurred, even though upon occassion things have been said about me which were demonstrably untrue (like an assertion of who I would be endorsing in the 33rd Councilmanic District).

Frankly, I reached my boiling point, and lately have been overreacting, because I'm just plain tired of it. As you will notice, I admit that my anger precipitated this incident, which is actually the climax of a far longer narrative, the details of which I will spare you, although the fact that the incident did not occur in a vacuum does not change the fact that I do not consider it, as NextGenDems describes it, "a badge of honor". That being said, as NextGenDems just emailed me "it was just a matter of time"     

Michael can call me a liar, but a lie requires scienter--I believe what I say with all my heart.

Can we just end it now?