vanity fair
Dear Graydon. , I have been told that John Conally , has resurrected the story about me that both he and David Margolik were originally assigned . Though I frankly initially was surprised, as you had clearly stated during our last conversation that it was your closely held belief that a sex story, is not vanity fairs fare,, unless the person was holding public office. You had also admirably stated that Vanity fair distinguished iteself from the other magazines by being 80% fact, wherein the others were less than fifty. It might come as a shock to you but in fact I would welcome a story with the caveat that it be carefully reviewed by both you and your staff. (Though I much prefer no story at all,as you know I am a private person, I take your last comment to heart ,," then you should have lived in a one bedroom on the west side") My concern is that John COnally has conducted himself in a way that I'm sure does not reflect either your or the magazines ethics. As I'm sure you are aware, john worked for me , or to more precise his company "Hit the Bid", ( you decide it's connotation), was hired by me when I owned Radar magazine. His tactic of telling people he was a former detective, (i'm sure you are aware of his unedited backround) and that I had kicked a pregnant woman (Vicky Ward) , in the stomach, the last time there was an article.is only one of the many clear reasons he should be removed from doing this story. ( I had personally asked Vicky to mention this to you , as we both agreed this wasn't your style ). His statement that Margolik was going about the story the wrong way by getting the facts from the Lawyers first, and then having that as part of a story, was an anathema to his style of " writing the entire story and then giving the other a side only a day to respond. .Is especially aggregious in this case.. I would respectfully request a meeting with you and your editor, attorneys and if you thought wise Conally himself, to review the true facts of this event, something that David Margolik was scheduled to do, but cancelled the very morning it was to have taken place. I was led to believe that as David, who had been privledged to certain facts, began to see that the story was in fact , not the sleaze that conally had hoped for that he was recalled. To get the legallities out of the way,, please consier this notice that the police reports that were released to the public contain both gross fabrications and malicious inventions, and if relied upon for your story after this notice , would be clear grounds for a defamation and malice claim. A claim that I would regretfully but certainly pursue. If instead, you were willing to publish a factual account , including all it's warts and pimples, but based on documentary evidence , I would cooperate fully , limited only by legal considerations. I think this is fair , as you will end up with a better article, and though I would not expect to be "happy ", you could at least claim that I had been treated fairly. AT a minimum I think that John Conally his interviews , and notes must be disregarded, as under the new york times journalistic ethicsguide. .........
Dear Graydon. , I have been told that John Conally , has resurrected the story about me that both he and David Margolik were originally assigned . Though I frankly initially was surprised, as you had clearly stated during our last conversation that it was your closely held belief that a sex story, is not vanity fairs fare,, unless the person was holding public office. You had also admirably stated that Vanity fair distinguished iteself from the other magazines by being 80% fact, wherein the others were less than fifty. It might come as a shock to you but in fact I would welcome a story with the caveat that it be carefully reviewed by both you and your staff. (Though I much prefer no story at all,as you know I am a private person, I take your last comment to heart ,," then you should have lived in a one bedroom on the west side") My concern is that John COnally has conducted himself in a way that I'm sure does not reflect either your or the magazines ethics. As I'm sure you are aware, john worked for me , or to more precise his company "Hit the Bid", ( you decide it's connotation), was hired by me when I owned Radar magazine. His tactic of telling people he was a former detective, (i'm sure you are aware of his unedited backround) and that I had kicked a pregnant woman (Vicky Ward) , in the stomach, the last time there was an article.is only one of the many clear reasons he should be removed from doing this story. ( I had personally asked Vicky to mention this to you , as we both agreed this wasn't your style ). His statement that Margolik was going about the story the wrong way by getting the facts from the Lawyers first, and then having that as part of a story, was an anathema to his style of " writing the entire story and then giving the other a side only a day to respond. .Is especially aggregious in this case.. I would respectfully request a meeting with you and your editor, attorneys and if you thought wise Conally himself, to review the true facts of this event, something that David Margolik was scheduled to do, but cancelled the very morning it was to have taken place. I was led to believe that as David, who had been privledged to certain facts, began to see that the story was in fact , not the sleaze that conally had hoped for that he was recalled. To get the legallities out of the way,, please consier this notice that the police reports that were released to the public contain both gross fabrications and malicious inventions, and if relied upon for your story after this notice , would be clear grounds for a defamation and malice claim. A claim that I would regretfully but certainly pursue. If instead, you were willing to publish a factual account , including all it's warts and pimples, but based on documentary evidence , I would cooperate fully , limited only by legal considerations. I think this is fair , as you will end up with a better article, and though I would not expect to be "happy ", you could at least claim that I had been treated fairly. AT a minimum I think that John Conally his interviews , and notes must be disregarded, as under the new york times journalistic ethicsguide. .........
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265