Fwd: FW: Interesting
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Hannah Linkenhoker <hannah@nmapartners.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Subject: FW: Interesting
To: John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com>, Huma Abedin <huma@clintonemail.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 12:12 PM
To: Hannah Linkenhoker
Subject: Re: Interesting
I got radio silence from Jesse for 4-5 days and now an email saying that the premise of the story is wrong? When Jesse doesn't know the premise of the story because he refused to talk to me.
On Tuesday, September 29, 2015, Hannah Linkenhoker <hannah@nmapartners.com> wrote:
Huma, John -
Just wanted to flag something for you guys. Katie Benner, a technology reporter for the NYT, reached out to me this week looking for a comment from the campaign about the emerging intersection of policy and the technology economy for a story she’s almost finished with (she had significant information about the Munchery event, including photos). I spoke to her briefly yesterday and she’s writing a very positive story (that does not center around the Munchery event, or only HRC) and has quotes from Senator Warner, among others. I’ve been working with Warner’s office (Shervin had dinner with him last week FYI) so have had an inside view of this issue, and personally think this could be a missed opportunity to get credit in a positive way and be seen as a leader on a cutting edge political issue. I put Katie in touch with Jesse Ferguson (see below) but she’s now prepared to publish “no comment from the Clinton campaign”. I’m sure you guys have discussed, and obviously up to you, just wanted to make sure you were aware.
Best,Hannah
From: "Benner, Katie"
Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 12:12 PM
To: Hannah Linkenhoker
Subject: Re: Interesting
He thinks I'm writing a story about the Munchery meeting and that I think it was all about the gig economy. He wrong, which he'd know if he found it useful to have any sort of communication.I'm using the Munchery meeting as an example of a discussion between tech and policy makers to understand the future of the labor markets.I let him know that the story was done, with a 'no comment' from Clinton's camp. I also said that if he wants to email over any sort of statement, he can get it to me at 1 and I'll forward it to the editor. (I'm in a meeting now).
I got radio silence from Jesse for 4-5 days and now an email saying that the premise of the story is wrong? When Jesse doesn't know the premise of the story because he refused to talk to me.
--
415-644-3313 (w)628-222-0579 (m)@ktbenner
We probably need an intervention here.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Hannah Linkenhoker <hannah@nmapartners.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Subject: FW: Interesting
To: John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com>, Huma Abedin <huma@clintonemail.com>
Huma, John -
Just wanted to flag something for you guys. Katie Benner, a technology reporter for the NYT, reached out to me this week looking for a comment from the campaign about the emerging intersection of policy and the technology economy for a story she’s almost finished with (she had significant information about the Munchery event, including photos). I spoke to her briefly yesterday and she’s writing a very positive story (that does not center around the Munchery event, or only HRC) and has quotes from Senator Warner, among others. I’ve been working with Warner’s office (Shervin had dinner with him last week FYI) so have had an inside view of this issue, and personally think this could be a missed opportunity to get credit in a positive way and be seen as a leader on a cutting edge political issue. I put Katie in touch with Jesse Ferguson (see below) but she’s now prepared to publish “no comment from the Clinton campaign”. I’m sure you guys have discussed, and obviously up to you, just wanted to make sure you were aware.
Best,Hannah
From: "Benner, Katie"
Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 12:12 PM
To: Hannah Linkenhoker
Subject: Re: Interesting
He thinks I'm writing a story about the Munchery meeting and that I think it was all about the gig economy. He wrong, which he'd know if he found it useful to have any sort of communication.I'm using the Munchery meeting as an example of a discussion between tech and policy makers to understand the future of the labor markets.I let him know that the story was done, with a 'no comment' from Clinton's camp. I also said that if he wants to email over any sort of statement, he can get it to me at 1 and I'll forward it to the editor. (I'm in a meeting now).
I got radio silence from Jesse for 4-5 days and now an email saying that the premise of the story is wrong? When Jesse doesn't know the premise of the story because he refused to talk to me.I think the no comment is probably fine.
--
--
Actually, I sent her a comment this afternoon after her email.
For what it’s worth, she did not make it clear that the focus of her story was on the “Gig” economy until after brining the story to me. Originally it was a story about why candidates visit startups more generally. She then changed direction to focus on “Gig” economy companies.
When we did the Munchery event, we decided not to comment on it in the local press since the event was closed press so I was hoping to avoid that here. However, based on her final note, we did give her a comment.
From: John Podesta [mailto:john.podesta@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 5:41 PM
To: Jesse Ferguson <jferguson@hillaryclinton.com>; Teddy Goff <tgoff@hillaryclinton.com>; Stephanie Hannon <hannon@hillaryclinton.com>
Subject: Fwd: FW: Interesting
We probably need an intervention here.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Hannah Linkenhoker <hannah@nmapartners.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Subject: FW: Interesting
To: John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com>, Huma Abedin <huma@clintonemail.com>
Huma, John -
Just wanted to flag something for you guys. Katie Benner, a technology reporter for the NYT, reached out to me this week looking for a comment from the campaign about the emerging intersection of policy and the technology economy for a story she’s almost finished with (she had significant information about the Munchery event, including photos). I spoke to her briefly yesterday and she’s writing a very positive story (that does not center around the Munchery event, or only HRC) and has quotes from Senator Warner, among others. I’ve been working with Warner’s office (Shervin had dinner with him last week FYI) so have had an inside view of this issue, and personally think this could be a missed opportunity to get credit in a positive way and be seen as a leader on a cutting edge political issue. I put Katie in touch with Jesse Ferguson (see below) but she’s now prepared to publish “no comment from the Clinton campaign”. I’m sure you guys have discussed, and obviously up to you, just wanted to make sure you were aware.
Best,
Hannah
From: "Benner, Katie"
Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 12:12 PM
To: Hannah Linkenhoker
Subject: Re: Interesting
He thinks I'm writing a story about the Munchery meeting and that I think it was all about the gig economy. He wrong, which he'd know if he found it useful to have any sort of communication.
I'm using the Munchery meeting as an example of a discussion between tech and policy makers to understand the future of the labor markets.
I let him know that the story was done, with a 'no comment' from Clinton's camp. I also said that if he wants to email over any sort of statement, he can get it to me at 1 and I'll forward it to the editor. (I'm in a meeting now).
On Sep 29, 2015, at 11:45 AM, Benner, Katie <katie.benner@nytimes.com> wrote:
I got radio silence from Jesse for 4-5 days and now an email saying that the premise of the story is wrong? When Jesse doesn't know the premise of the story because he refused to talk to me.
--
415-644-3313 (w)
628-222-0579 (m)
@ktbenner
Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 12:12 PM
To: Hannah Linkenhoker
Subject: Re: Interesting
I got radio silence from Jesse for 4-5 days and now an email saying that the premise of the story is wrong? When Jesse doesn't know the premise of the story because he refused to talk to me.