RRbanner.jpg

April 26, 2005

They let this guy near journalism students?

Recently, my old friend Peter Landesman took his handsome mug and dubious credentials to Northwestern University's Medill journalism school, where he lectured students on, keep a straight face now, proper sourcing in investigative stories.

Until Medill student reporter Jeannie Vanasco Googles her name, finds this post, and sends me a complete transcript of the talk (who says I don't know how to do research?), here's her report. It's nice to know that criticisms of Landesman's sex slave story are still dogging him, and not surprising that he's still having trouble explaining himself. The key paragraph, fisked, after the jump.

"A privilege source is a source that can deliver something, but for which you must add a certain realm of protection."

No argument there. Though perhaps that protection shouldn't include forgetting to tell the readers, or your editors, that your source has multiple personality disorder.

"In my sex trafficking story, I dealt with girls who were forced to have sex with 40 men a day. Law enforcement didn’t understand the gravity of it."

Still doesn't, apparently, considering that since his article came out, there has not been a single arrest or raid that would confirm Landesman's central contention that American adolescents are being kidnapped and enslaved in suburban basements.

"The details were incredibly horrific. Men would put pictures out of Playboy on girls’ faces when having sex with them. These girls were nine years old."

Hmm. That detail wasn't in the article. And didn't come out in the NPR interview in which PL spilled other stuff that didn't make it into print (remember the hairy chest? Good times, good times). So he's still parcelling out tidbits. And what exactly is this one supposed to mean? Is he saying here that men who pay for sex with children are fantasizing that they're having sex with grown women? I don't claim to be an expert on the pedophile mind, but does that sound right to anyone? Isn't it usually the other way around? To me, this sounds like so much else that "Andrea" told him: a confused, wounded young woman's overheated fantasy about what being a child sex slave might be like.

"One criticism is that I never actually saw sex trafficking take place, but would I have screwed [over] my sources? I have to go home and live with myself as a journalist and the relationships I develop."

Can't quite tell what PL is saying here, but I don't much like either possibility. Maybe he's saying that he DID witness the trafficking, but promised his sources he wouldn't mention it (in which case, he's screwing them [over] now; I guess it's OK if you wait a year). Why would he do that? Surely if he witnessed something taking place, he could describe it without saying who told him where to go and when. Or is he saying he could not have gained access to the trafficking sites without giving his source as a reference, who would then have been exposed when the story came out? But that seems unlikely to say the least. Honestly, I'm stumped. How is protecting your sources an excuse for the lapses in this story?

Oh, and Peter, if you're Googling your name, tough luck on that small claims hearing. Can't believe the judge wasn't impressed when you told him your credentials. "What bearing does this have in the case?" The nerve of him!

Posted by Daniel Radosh

Comments

Am I to understand that Landesman sued you? That's a story worth telling.

Oh no, not me, sorry. Believe me, that you would have heard about before this. Totally non-journalism related. Just some gossip I thought was funny.

Radosh,

For a guy whose interests seem to roam between pre-pubescent girl-bands and middle-school level take-downs, I am impressed you still claim some interest in journalism. Regarding the story in question, The Girls Next Door, nearly a dozen real-world arrests, raids, federal, local and international task forces were its direct result, including a conviction two weeks ago, in Federal court in the Southern District of New York, of one of Mexico’s largest sex-trafficking network/families, the Carretos, a network the story exposed as one of many operating in Tenancingo, Mexico. Two weeks after the story ran, Carreto operations in Mexico and the US were raided, a number of the girls rescued, including one young woman the story dwells on; her infant daughter held as collateral in Tenancingo was also arrested. The convicted perpetrators are facing up to 35 years in Federal prison. A federal trial is about to begin in San Diego in which a similar though different network operating in “the reeds” north of that city (also exposed by the article) is to face a similar fate. A short time after the story ran, the FBI and other federal agencies took up close surveillance of the area; the trial cited above is one result. Also, in February, 2004, shortly after the article's publication, a sex trafficking network operating in a motel across the street from Disneyland was taken down. There is quite a bit more, all on public record, and more still happening in Mexico and Eastern Europe.

As to my private life, I’m glad (I guess) to see you have the time on your hands to dig into the very important realms of small claims courts, traffic tickets, etc.. As to the personal insults, I think it’s pretty clear to the world at large precisely how they and you speak for themselves.

Landesman

Forgive the type-o. The infant in question wasn't (obviously) arrested, but rescued. ... PL


(from the) list of the 2004 Overseas Press Club Awards Winners

THE JOE and LAURIE DINE AWARD -- Best international reporting in a print medium dealing with human rights -- Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker, "The Abu Ghraib Scandal" -- Citation: Peter Landesman, The New York Times Magazine, "The Girls Next Door."

LOL!

"Her infant daughter [...] was also arrested."

re: LANDESMAN: "The details were incredibly horrific. Men would put pictures out of Playboy on girls’ faces when having sex with them. These girls were nine years old." ... RADOSH: Hmm. That detail wasn't in the article. And didn't come out in the NPR interview in which PL spilled other stuff that didn't make it into print (remember the hairy chest? Good times, good times). So he's still parcelling out tidbits. And what exactly is this one supposed to mean? ...To me, this sounds like so much else that "Andrea" told him: a confused, wounded young woman's overheated fantasy about what being a child sex slave might be like."

Radosh -- again, you display zero knowledge of this dark universe, and too little acumen to contemplate what it is these girls go through. The men, in this case, are using the girls as receptacles for their fantasies. The fantasies don't include pubescent girls (sadly in great supply) but grown women (in short supply). Surely, you've come across the notion of a man imagining one woman while having sex with another? ... But look, since you are hell-bent on reducing everything I report to either a product of my imagination or outright fiction, I'll offer you this challenge: do some actual reporting. If you're up for it I'll put you in direct contact with the law enforcement official who led me there, and who has been investigating this particular crime scene for some time. He's in the public record. He's been a source for a number of news outlets. ('Andrea' was not my source on this. And I should add that 'Andrea' has been fully vetted and confirmed as reliable and credible by a higher body of journalism than you or I.) It's time to put down your mouse and roll up your sleeves, Mr. Radosh. It's extraordinary to me that your little website, which apparently spends most of its space on puerile sexual anecdotes and the anatomy of starlets, is actually followed. Alas, such is the reality of the new internet universe, where any guy with a computer (and, apparently, a great deal of time) can play journalist. It is a reality I now accept. So I am forced to match you, allegation by fact. If only to establish a public record.

Hmm. Usually I only do actual reporting for actual money, but perhaps I can find a publication interested in a complete vetting of the story, if only to establish a public record. I'll get back to you on that. Meanwhile, I'll emphasize (again) that I never challenged the existence and horror of the international sex slave trade, or questioned any aspect of your reporting in Mexico or Eastern Europe. However I stand by my assertion that "there has not been a single arrest or raid that would confirm Landesman's central contention that American adolescents are being kidnapped and enslaved in suburban basements." The raids and arrests you cite involve foreign women over the age of 16 (who, based on these cases at least, don't seem at all in short supply). In other words, not the stuff of magazine cover stories or Hollywood films (perhaps to our culture's discredit, but that's another story).

I suggest you do try putting down your mouse and do some digging. Looks like you could use the practice. A number of the young women in both of these cases were under 16. Not that they would testify; they are too afraid, too traumatized. But a few phone calls by you (limited reporting, a few minutes each) to the federal or local authorities involved -- people I have spent a great deal of time with -- might have told you that there are victims in these places as young as 12. (You might not find this on the internet, which means those mouse-clicks won't do you much good.) Once again, you miss the size and shape of this story, and even the content. Stop focusing on the take-down. Try getting into fact and experience. I think you'll find your previous attacks toothless, misinformed, less worthy of a story.

...and since you brought up what you did and did not criticize, regarding the sex slaves story, I really need to address this. For some reason, you -- who do not know me, nor has ever met me -- seem to feel free to go after not just the content of my work -- which is fair game -- but the content of my character. Obviously, you're free to do so. It's not against the law. It is, however, radically unprofessional and, well, weird. I recognize the level of your work; at the same time you seem to aspire to something else. Occasionally, something small you write appear somewhere of substance. You really need to re-examine some of the spaghetti you threw against the wall a year ago. You seemed to take great pleasure -- as you still do, with this righteously puerile tone of your last posting on me and this story -- in taking me down personally. I know these are the time we live in. I recognize that remaining silent and letting the work speak for and confirm itself (as this story has done, in spades) is usually the way to go when faced with frivolous attacks. But when you move against me personally, we're in a different game altogether.

Woah, now. I really do not think you want to raise the issue of who started making personal attacks, threatening take-downs, and engaging in unprofessional behavior. I have in fact been extremely circumspect in sharing details of our early exchanges which might go some way toward explaining my current "weird" attitude. Frankly, the tone you read as righteously purile was intended as humorously mocking. I should think you'd be glad I do have a sense of humor, just as I'm legitimately glad that you've opted, now, for a civil and public discussion in defending your work.

Here's my point about this character assassination issue. By sarcastically accusing me of essentially making up or stretching details in this world (i.e. 'Andrea' initially fearing me because my appearance reminded her of one of her captors/rapists); by making fun of this, you are demeaning not me, really, but the victims of these crimes and, ultimately, yourself. As I said recently to another columnist at a major American newspaper who came after me for similar reasons, it is akin to making fun of a rape victim; it is akin to saying she asked for it. There you sit, Radosh, in your cubicle/den in Brooklyn, or wherever, nearby safe 7th Ave. among the nannies and the coffee housese, sitting in judgement of a story you really do actually know nothing about; but worse, about a subculture that is clearly beyond your imagination, your experience, your expertise. Of course I take it personally; how could any professional who takes his work seriously not? But more importantly than my feelings: you don't realize, as others have not, that you are denying -- diminishing -- the pain of young women you and others did not know exist. Liberal (I'm guessing), somewhat comfortable (I'm guessing), a parent (according to your website) -- strange qualifications for a man who would like to wear the clothes of an arbiter of journalistic integrity, but who instead stands nakedly cynical and ill-informed, intent on scoring a cheap shot's points over mulling the truth of a thing. Your attack on this, on her, on her experience, is a strange contradiction. Other attacks on this account have been politically motivated. Your attacks seem fueled by a lack of spirit; certainly a total lack of information. It is easy to run a blog in a darkened den (or a glass tower in America's suburbia). It is quite another thing to hit the streets and learn something you didn't know before. You seem to want to go down as the guy who denies the victim her due. Time has a funny way of neutering the blather. It certainly has in this case, and will continue to do so.

RADOSH: "The raids and arrests you cite involve foreign women over the age of 16 (who, based on these cases at least, don't seem at all in short supply). In other words, not the stuff of magazine cover stories or Hollywood films."

Another curious and worrisome comment from you, Radosh. Are not 19-year old Ukrainian women, or 15-year old Mexican women not of equal value to a 16-year old American? What precisely are you saying here? “Oh, they’re foreigners. Well, that’s okay!” Putting ‘Andrea’, the American trafficking victim I interviewed, aside, is not the presence of hundreds of slave houses and brothels in American cities – some within spitting distance of where we live -- where thousands of foreign, young, desperate, entrapped, drugged, infected, disoriented women are forced to have sex with as many as 30 men a day (often without protection) not worthy of a cover story? What is it, a p. 3 Metro story? What precisely are you saying here? By what moral compass are you operating? Is this your point of contention, the color of the girls’ skin, the language they speak, the distance they are from home?

Landesman

Yes, that's exactly what I mean! I hate foreigners. You're right.

Um, what I mean to say is, for the sake of convenience, this thread continues here: http://radosh.net/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1196

-This sad exchange illustrates vividly the character of the children who call themselves 'journalists'. Honestly, we'd be better served by letting domestic pets do the news reporting and leave these clowns to their schoolyard spats...

Normally I delete comment spam, but somehow this seems like a fitting end to this thread.

yeah

Post a comment

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2