It is maddening to be viciously and inaccurately attacked on the web, and be denied the opportunity to print a response in the place you were attacked. People should have the opportunity to read the response on the thread where the original attack was made.
But Rock Hackshaw is much too special to operate under the normal rules of professional ethics and simple human decency.
He almost never corrects an error of fact in his columns, and even when he does, he never acknowledges or flags it.
And he won’t let you comment yourself
He offers two alternatives to the beleaguered:
Email him (not that he ever corrects anything)
Sue him; even if you are a public figure who cannot possibly meet the threshold for libel which applies to public figures; and even if you are a First Amendment absolutist (as I am) who believes the best cure for bad speech is neither suppression or litigation, but more speech (which he denies you the opportunity to partake in).
A year ago, I responded in detail to Rock’s allegations that I’ve carried out a five year vendetta against him. I will not repeat these details, since you can read tem for yourself.
I will note that from the period of 5/14/08, when Rock and I were chosen to attend the 2008 Democratic Convention as New York’s designated bloggers, to 5/23/10, when we engaged in a really stupid snit after Rock blasted another blogger and I made the mistake of defending him, we had nary a battle (although I will return to this subject later).
During this two year time, I attended the convention with Rock, lent him money, endorsed him for City Council (my wife even gave money to his campaign), and publicly defended him when his job was threatened.
So, at the very least, the idea that I’ve conducted a six year vendetta against Rock is just preposterous. The longest period one of our snits lasted was three months. The 2010 fight was over by June, and by August, Rock was urging me to take a comment I made on one of his posts and make it into its own piece.
I was actually puzzled where the present animus comes from, so I tried to track it.
When it was announced the 54th Assembly District seat was to become vacant, I began a series on the boneheaded coverage of the race in the mainstream media. Rock was included in the piece, almost as an afterthought. He did his own response, and I felt compelled to say he was not my real target. He responded
“LOOK: TREAT THIS AS JUST ANOTHER DAY OF TOWEL-SNAPPING IN ROOM EIGHT'S LOCKER-ROOM AND SHOWERS.”
And I did.
Later in March, Rock published a column on Brooklyn judicial races, replete with multiple errors of fact, which I corrected.
Before I posted in his thread, Rock was given the opportunity to make the changes himself, but he insisted on publishing (among other errors) that Ted Jones, who sits on the Court of Appeals, was retired from the bench. I corrected him on that and other errors (I also pointed out what I considered to be a contradiction in the substantive argument he was making).
Rock went ballistic, and told me if I didn’t like what he wrote; I didn’t have to read it.
Incidentally, I also made an error of fact in the thread, but, unlike Rock, I corrected it and apologized. That is what people with standards of professional integrity do.
In April, I questioned Rock’s suggestion that Cathie Black could be a viable candidate for Mayor, and he pretty much attacked me as a sexist and racist (and I though her name was the only thing Black about her).
During the same thread, someone calling himself ProspectPark asked:
What are Lori Knipel's chances of winning the Borough President's race? Who would be her opposition, if any? I think Lori would make a fine Borough President.
Lori’s candidacy, such that it is, was being pushed by Rock; I responded:
“If any? Lord, why would there be any opposition at all? Lori should win by acclimation. They shouldn't even hold an election, the choice is just so damned obvious”
A few days later, Rock cited this quote as evidence that I was supporting Lori. I corrected this false assertion a few days later in one of my Gateway columns.
For my troubles, Rock questioned my integrity, implying I was beholden to “superiors.”
He also accused me of sexism, with a special bias against Jewish women. Then he implied that all Jewish men shared this bias.
Rock got so mad at my correcting outrageous errors of fact that he said he was going to refuse to engage me any longer (though that didn’t even last through the thread).
How outrageous?
Rock reported that Lori had once been threatened with assassination.
While it may be true that some political hanger-on may have said something to Lori with the word “kill” (and I doubt that) I want to see the Police Report. Certainly the Police would take an interest in an assassination threat against a Judge’s wife.
If Rock believes Lori Knipel’s life was threatened, he must therefore believe that Barron family enforcer Viola Plummer really threatened Leroy Comrie’s life.Do you really believe this Rock?
Rock also said black voters owed Lori because she cast a history making vote to elect Clarence Norman as Democratic County Leader.
Actually Lori was not even a District Leader when that history was made.
But Rock doesn’t even believe his own arguments. When Joan Millman, who did cast such an historic vote, ran for re-election last year, Rock endorsed her opponent.
Does Rock have a problem with Jewish women? I didn't even know Rock was Jewish.
Perhaps Rock has other motivations for backing Lori, perhaps not (I’ll get to that later).
Around the same time Rock wrote a largely negative column about the Bin Laden operation embodying quite a few left thoughts I disagreed with.
I responded respectfully with my own piece, and Rock posted to disagree, and I let him know I did not post the piece to rag him. He responded:
“I am not saying you were ragging me. I always gleefully anticipate columns like this one in response to issues I raise. Especially when you are serious and not "ragging" me. LOL. They are usually quite informative.”
When Rock came out for same sex marriage, I hailed him for it, though, like him, I could not resist a bit of towel snapping myself.
Following the passage of Same Sex Marriage, I posted a piece about my favorite eccentric obsession: the idea that the embrace of marriage by the LGTB community is a triumph of conservatism, and does not auger well for those advocating more radical alternatives to marriage.
To illustrate many of my points, I quoted extensively (and with very few edits) from an old Room 8 thread that dealt with this very topic. Several prominent bloggers were quoted extensively, including EnWhySeaWonk, Mole333 and Mary Alice Miller. Rock was also quoted extensively.
It was not the first time I had done this; here, for example, I did it the same thing in this a piece about Charles Barron’s performance in the Governor’s race, which I wrote pretty much at Rock’s request. Rock called that one brilliant.
This time, Rock went nuts about my doing the same thing. He also complained that I only commented on his columns when they concerned an elected official I owed a favor, and particularly that I ignored columns he’d written about the Middle East. This notwithstanding that he was making his complaint in a column about broad social concerns, rather than local politics, and that we’d just recently exchanged thoughts about Bin Laden.
So, in retrospect, I guess Rock was already agitated, though I still think that if any party is beleaguered here, it is I.
Then came Rock’s piece where he raised the issue of whether the Brooklyn DA had used the powers of his office to manipulated the outcome of an election. I submit that despite using hedge words, Rock was alleging exactly that (read it if you don’t believe me), and I submit that this might very well, if true, constitute a crime.
Even though Rock was talking about a race where we each strongly supported the same candidate, I thought his allegations were not only preposterous, but did not make political sense.
We disagreed; that’s why they have horse races. We did not disagree on anything personal; we disagreed on a matter of opinion.
As a result, Rock closed down his comments section. He wants to be able to make such outrageous allegations without having them questioned.
G-d forbid.
Rock complains about what he calls the trolls, but it is really others who bother him more; the others being those who raise questions he does not want to deal with, because he’s rather have his meesage gone out unsullied by questioning.
As Rock puts it:
“every single piece I write…becomes a battleground. On one side you have the trolls, stalkers, player-haters, a few Draculas looking for new blood, status-quo defenders, lackeys of elected officials, a few meaningful adversaries (some who are philosophically/politically opposed), some entrenched fools, and others.”
Here he answers a poster obviously extremely knowledgeable about Brooklyn politics, who had the temerity to raise legitimate questions about the viability of a Knipel candidacy for Borough President:
“I can see what you are trying to do (cowardly attack her candidacy before it even gets off the ground). So now why don't you describe what you see as credentials fitting a boro prez and come up with your own friggin candidate AND column. Stop trying to destroy mine: she is quite capable and qualified in my eyes and in the eyes of many like me. Shelve your hatchet please. If she decides to run she will get my support and the support of many others. Will she win? I don't know. I want her to try to break the male-domination in this position; that's all. And she can't do it if she doesn't run; or if she let jokers like you dissuade her with your cynical and vicious comments thinly vieled like some kinda honest discourse with me. You know your objective…Don't respond unless you want me to cuss you out. So STFU.”
Since he closed his comments, Rock has posted some things I disagree with. He has stated that John Sampson deserves all the credit for passing Same Sex Marriage, and that the Governor was motivated solely by spite against the Catholic Church.
I found the remarks about the Governor offensive and inaccurate, so I opened up a column to explain why. I also noted Sampson’s important role, but outlined why I thought the Governor deserved primary credit.
In his piece, Rock stated quite accurately that Sampson took some risks at home for his position. I agreed that Sampson’s position was not the popular one in his district. However, I also explained why I thought Rock had somewhat exaggerated the risk
Most importantly, I noted why the risk, which was real, was worth it.
It was necessary for Sampson to keep his leadership of the Democratic Party in the State Senate.
In his latest piece, Rock ridicules me for saying Sampson didn’t take any risk, but I never said that. And he has never engaged the question of why Sampson, who did not support Same Sex Marriage before he assumed a leadership position, found the risk worth taking.
He also ridicules me for citing a source close to Sampson for the proposition that Sampson took no risk on the issue.
As usual Rock is wrong. I cited the source close to Sampson for the proposition that the Governor deserves the lion’s share of the credit for the passage of Same Sex Marriage. That is an entirely different proposition.
Rock also takes issue with other things I found wrong in the other columns he did not allows posts on. But when he asserts that during a reapportionment year, one can run for the legislature run anywhere one pleases, regardless of one’s residence, it begs correction.
Instead, Rock bleats that I misunderstood his point.
I got his point; he just got a fact wrong which people might rely upon. It was a public service to correct it.
Too bad his ego is too large to make the corrections himself.
I also opened columns about other matters where I wanted to disagree with one or more of Rock’s points, as when he repeated some of the assertions I found wrongheaded when I posted my “Triumph of the Conservatives” piece.
In writing this column, I discovered one further failure in Rock’s professional ethics which I think is extremely serious.
In fact, an early argument over it constituted the closest thing we had to a real fight during our two years of almost total peace.
In 2008, Rock was a paid consultant to Ed Towns’ re-election campaign. He disclosed it, and mostly, I defended his right to keep blogging about the race.
What ticked me off were two tangential matters.
The first was that Rock expected to be treated as a journalist by the candidate he was opposing, rather than as a paid partisan. He had the nerve to complain when Kevin Powell refused to talk to him at an event.
Still, while I sided with Powell (and like Rock, I was supporting Towns) on the incident, I defended Rock from the worst attacks on his integrity in this race, and the one against Kevin Parker:
Rock is clearly not qualified to cover this campaign, as a JOURNALIST. Disclosure does not cleanse a journalist's bias, at least not when one is on the tit.
But anyone who read Rock knows he is not operating as a journalist; he is operating as a COMMENTATOR.
Commentators also have certain obligations, disclosure bring the foremost. They cannot, or should not, pretend to the journalistic convention of neutrality. They are interesting not such much in spite of their biases, but precisely because of those biases.
Now, a commentator who's taken money and failed to disclose it is a problem. But a commentator who has taken money and disclosed it is a different matter. Certainly, he forfeits a few of his privileges, but once his disclosure is on the table an emptor can surely choose on his own whether or not to caveat. No one in that context can blame Powell for his demurral. But really, in the matter of Parker, does it really make any difference whether Rock's ever taken a cent from Dr. Kendall or not? I mean, doesn't Parker have a right to demur from Rock as well, regardless of whether or not Rock has any monetary bias?
In the end, money might not always be that important. No amount of money is going to change Rock's opinion of Kevin Parker. But money is a bright line.
But even there, there are limits. For weeks, Michael Bouldin has screamed bloody murder that I should reveal my "Conflict of Interest" concerning Marty Connor and Shelly Silver. And I actually came clean on Daily Gotham, for what it was worth.
The basis of my alleged "Pro-Silver" "conflict" (apparently manifested by my comparison of the Bullfrog to a benign tumor, rather than a malignant one) would seem to be that I once worked for an elected official whose turf overlapped Silver's. In my experience, this is a relationship as likely to lead to conflicts as to conflicts of interest. This was surely true in my case. During that time, I developed such a strong relationship with Silver's office that I am now on a list Judy Rapfogel keeps in her back pocket of people never to be hired by the Assembly Democrats.
The basis of my Connor "conflict" is that I once worked for Connor. This puts me in the same category as Kardon "KAS" Stolzman, who in 2006 managed Ken Diamondstone's campaign against Connor. Scott McClellan worked for Dubya and no one seems to think it disqualifies him from commenting. In fact, it is the one and only reason we have for listening to him at all.
Anyway, the last year I was employed by Connor was 2002. This was back in the era when Steve Harrison was sending checks to the Conservative Party, so one would think Bouldin would deem it ancient history. As far as I know, the last time any member of my family, even broadly defined, drew a check from Connor or his campaign committee was in 2004. If it has happened since, I am not aware of it. One will notice that in the 2006 election cycle, Gatemouth made only rare references to Connor. Gary Tilzer, blogging anonymously, actually used the fact that such utterances were rare as another example of my perfidy. In his estimation, I was not to be trusted because I refused to comment about my friends. But, it's been a long time since Marty Connor's put money in my purse. Surely, the statute of limitations in politics, which is defined by "What have you done for me, lately", has long passed.
But surely, anyone coming to places like Room 8 looking for objectivity deserves whatever they get.
Really though, if Rock and I hadn't earned our battle scars in the trenches, would there be any reason to read us at all?
Far from being insulted, Rock was elated:
EXACTLY…………Geeze Gatemouth, someone who writes succinctly actually hijacked your typewriter again. And I am so glad they did/lol. "Really though, if Rock and I hadn't earned our battle scars in the trenches, would there be any reason to read us at all": well, that's a great question Gate. I still think though that there are those who aren't battle-scarred, who do offer profound insights, give up pertinent political info and do wonderful things for this new political art-form (the blogs).
And there followed a short discussion about what I call “Trench-Mouth"–the insufferable arrogance of the political veteran concerning civilians.
What bothered me more was Rock posting pro-Towns columns which read like press releases. as I noted when Rock actually posted a piece hailing Towns’ endorsement by Kevin Parker:
This piece, as well as those appearing before the Towns/Hillary event, qualify as commercials.
Disclosure is surely merited, but I'm not sure it excuses something which by its presence on the same blog, casts doubt upon the quality level of the author's work.
I mean, seriously, when else would Rock cite Kevin Parker's endorsement as something to brag about?…Rock should either put a warning before such pieces stating they are paid political announcements…”
Rock had written terrible things about Hillary and Parker. There was no way he’d normall ycite their support as a credential. But he did, and I called him on it.
Rock reacted so angrily, that I actually backtracked.
Now I have reason to wish I hadn’t.
In January 2010, Rock posted a piece about John Sampson that read like a press release.
So, I asked him pointblank:
This does not look like a Rock piece; this looks like a politician's press release.
I've not seen anything like it from you since you were consulting for Ed Towns' re-election.
Which of course begs a question…Is this piece paid for?
If it is God bless; I only wish I knew how to generate some money out of Room 8, but if that is the case, then please at least give us a disclosure.
And if it is not, could you at least make future pieces like this a little more Rock style (actually, I'd appreciate that even if you were getting paid for it).
Rock responded:
NAH!!!!!…GATEY: I was at the press conference repping for my boss and thought this was news worthy. I have known John for almost 20 years now, he is a friend. I will do a "rock-like" piece on his mercurial rise, real soon. Watch out for it.
Perhaps, but subsequent events make this piece seem more like a loss-leader.
On 4/25/10, Rock posted a more “Rock-like” piece, extolling John Sampson and urging Senate Democrats to fall in behind his assumption of the Majority Leadership (which he then held in all but title). Two days earlier, Rock had received a check:
| ROCK HACKSHAW | 2,600.00 | CONSL | 23-APR-10 | COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT JOHN SAMPSON | 2010 July Periodic | F | State Senator | 19 | N/A |
At the time he did not disclose that he was being paid by Sampson while writing about Sampson.
On 8/30/10, with press reports placing under a serious ethical cloud Rock posted the counterintuitive “Is John Sampson Our Best Hope for Reform in Albany?”
Eleven days later, another check was issued.
| ROCK HACKSHAW | 2,600.00 | PROFL | 08-SEP-10 | COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT JOHN SAMPSON | 2010 Post Primary | F | State Senator | 19 | N/A |
Once again, Rock did not disclose that he was being paid by Sampson while writing about Sampson.
Make no mistake, I am not criticizing Sampson; it is perfectly legit for campaigns to pay people to blog on their behalf, if that is indeed what he did.
I am criticizing Rock.
Rock did not disclose he was being paid by Sampson until July 18, 2011 well over a year after what wuld appear to some to be the first of two check/column quid pro quos.
Even if the dates of the checks and the columns were just a coincidence, Rock needed to disclose his financial connection to the Sampson campaign at the time he posted the columns.
Further, even when, at long last, he did disclose his financial connection to Sampson (albeit, in a passing remark), Rock never bothered to mention that was writing blog Valentines to Sampson at almost the exact moments he was taking Sampson’s money.
I’m sorry, but this is indefensible.
And yet he has the nerve to accuse me of being beholden to “superiors” and people to whom I owe favors.
In the mainstream media Rock would have been fired.
But in the blogosphere, evidence might be said to indicate the possibility Rock is charging $2,600 a column.
That, of course is not what I’m saying.
Like Rock, in his piece about the Brooklyn DA, I am merely suggesting the possibility, not making an accusation.
Likewise, I am suggesting the slight possibility that, in cases like Knipel and Sampson that, at least some of the time, what causes Rock to explode is the fear that having to respond to legitimate comments might interfere with his present or potential future meal ticket.
As he recently said of Sampson while praising him for the achievement of others and denigrating those who are actually responsible for those achievements:
“I have worked for Senator John Sampson’s Campaign Committee on a pro-bono basis. Let me also sate (sic) that I once had a one-year advisor/consulting contract with said committee, which I will probably try to renew soon enough.”
If I were John Sampson, I’d really have to ask myself whether I would want to the Governor to know that I was paying someone money to write column on my behalf denigrating the Governor’s religious beliefs.
Anyway, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to postulate theories on the 2,600 possible reasons why Rock writes such columns and does not want others to be able to clean them of their pus with the disinfectant of inquiry.
To have to actually deal with issues raised by others might make Rock’s assertions seem less credible, and that might lower their value in the marketplace of ideas; or as Rock puts it:
“These types of outlandish charges have always been done in attempt to undermine my standing here. It was a strategy developed to discredit me on the blogs. It was always done to diminish my appeal and following.”
No, Rock does not want anyone to undermine anything he says, lest it call into question his seemingly omniscient brilliance. In his mind, he, perhaps literally, cannot afford for that to happen.
And yes, there’s no place for anyone to comment.
How does that feel, Rock?