A blogversation on Enron
Chronicle business columnist Loren Steffy penned a somewhat tongue-in-cheek (I think) column yesterday on the fact that some of his columns (and other evidence) have been presented by the Enron defendants as they argue for a change of venue.
Here's an excerpt:
IT'S my fault. That's what the attorneys for Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling would have you believe. If the toppled Enron kingpins don't get a fair trial here, it's in part because I keep referring to them with terms like that.
That's one of the arguments defense attorneys made in yet another motion filed Tuesday with U.S. District Judge Sim Lake.
In the filing I am, quite literally, "Exhibit A," the chief tainter of potential jurors.
In the Enron case, my writings have been cited several times by defense attorneys when raising questions of jury bias and begging for a venue change. I write about them, and they, in turn, write about me. Now I am writing about them writing about me writing about them. And when this column ends up in the next motion — well, you get the idea.
[snip]
It's important that Lay and Skilling are judged fairly by a jury of their peers. Nowhere, though, does the law say the rest of us must stifle our outrage over Enron's collapse until that justice is served.
Jurors are simply asked to set aside their biases and preconceptions and make a fair decision based on the evidence. People do that every day, in a host of jobs, from pastor to police officer.
The rest of the world doesn't abdicate its freedom of expression simply because the wealthy and powerful go on trial.
It seemed tongue-in-cheek up to the [snip] at least.
Tom Kirkendall suggested that Steffy seems to have missed the legal point behind the presentation of his columns:
Lay and Skilling's pleadings never question Steffy's right to express whatever viewpoint he wants in regard to Enron or their case. Rather, Lay and Skilling's point is that the Chronicle and local media's almost total failure to provide a counterbalance to the one-sided views of those expressed by Steffy and others has greatly contributed to the overwhelmingly negative views toward Lay and Skilling that are expressed in the responses to the juror questionairre that was transmitted to prospective jurors several months ago.
[snip]
The problem is not with Steffy's viewpoint. Rather, the problem is with the effect on potential jurors of the promotion of that viewpoint to the almost total exclusion of the contrary view.
That's a reasonable and important legal point, whatever one's emotional investment in the outcome of the Enron proceedings.
But it seemed to have provoked a somewhat less reasonable response on Steffy's blog later:
Tom Kirkendall over at Houston's Clear Thinkers says I'm missing the point in my column today on the latest attempt by Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling to move their upcoming trial. Tom again talks about how I and others in the media promote a "certain point of view.
In my case, I can't argue with that. As a columnist, that is, after all, my job."
Note the shift. Kirkendall is discussing the legal problem that results when virtually all mainstream media coverage of a given topic in a city conveys a similar perspective (I'm not commenting on Kirkendall's assessment of the media coverage; I'm just saying that's his argument). Steffy again makes it about HIM, ignoring the legal point once more.
And then Steffy makes it about Kirkendall:
Kirkendall has his own point of view, which on this issue is different than mine. That's fine, too. But his views aren't exactly balanced, either.
Kirkendall represents three former Enron executives -- Jeff McMahon, Greg Whalley and Richard Buy -- in civil actions pending in federal court in Houston. That's not something that's mentioned in most of his posts on the subject. So when he accuses journalists of promoting a certain point of view for financial gain, it's worth noting that he is doing the same thing.
Steffy has again missed/ignored the legal point. Kirkendall is not saying that Steffy should be more balanced (neither were the DeLay/Skilling attorneys), or that Kirkendall is offering anything but a perspective (that's what bloggers do, after all). Kirkendall is simply explaining why the DeLay/Skilling attorneys used Steffy's columns to support their legal argument, an argument that Kirkendall explains better than Steffy.
As for Kirkendall's clients, Steffy seems to be reaching. It's a "gotcha" without much "get." Kirkendall will be compensated for his representation of clients whether he blogs about legal matters on his blog or not; he's not being compensated for his blog or being asked to write a book, as far as I know. And the point in Kirkendall's earlier post about one journalist's potential conflict of interest in this matter does not quite match Steffy's characterization ("accuses journalists"). If the goal was somehow to tarnish Kirkendall, it didn't really work. And it was, once again, beside the point.
Maybe Steffy didn't really have an answer to Kirkendall's point, but felt the need to lash out regardless. It happens.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 01/19/06 11:02 PM | Print | Comments (0)
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
ADVERTISING
DISCLAIMER
All content © 2004-09, blogHOUSTON and the respective authors.
blogHOUSTON.net is powered by Nucleus.
Site design and Nucleus customization are by Kevin Whited.