No good deed goes unpunished ...
Oh, the e-mail flying around my inbox this morning.
First came the link to Connecticut lawyer Norm Pattis'
blog item headlined, "Dear Snotty Bitch: Back off." (He would be referring to me.)
Whatever. I've been called far worse. (And for the record, Mr. Pattis: I'm anything but snotty -- except when I have a cold. Had I been your editor, I would have changed that word to "bossy," "stubborn," "demanding," or "impatient." Maybe even to the phrase "precise-to-the-point-of-being-royally-annoying." I know my character flaws. Snotty? Pretentious? Nope. Not me.)
But for Mr. Pattis to insult SPJ and some of its tireless volunteers while mangling the details of events leading up to
a statement the Society released yesterday in defense of his client, Ken Krayeske?
Allow me to be precise to the point of being royally annoying.
Mr. Krayeske, a freelance journalist with a history of political activism that has gotten him in trouble with the law, was arrested in January during the inaugural parade of Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell.
Mr. Krayeske sought financial support from SPJ's Legal Defense Fund and sent an application to LDF committee members for consideration. Someone on the committee unfamiliar with the Society's practices posted that application, which contained personal information, on the Society's Web site. SPJ national leaders and Mr. Krayeske asked committee members to remove that information from the Web site immediately. The committee did so, and the Society apologized to Mr. Krayeske.
Mr. Krayeske still wanted to be considered for an LDF grant. The LDF committee conducted a standard investigation of his background and claims. While the committee was doing that work, Mr. Krayeske called the committee's chairman to say he'd raised enough money to cover his legal expenses and that he wouldn't need an LDF grant after all. However, he asked that SPJ reconsider his request should his legal expenses rise above current levels. SPJ officials agreed to do so.
The Society dropped the matter -- until Mr. Krayeske contacted me in late January, asking that SPJ please issue a statement supporting him.
The Society takes such requests seriously. And when there are questions about a person's claims, there is thoughtful review and debate. I'm not going to apologize for what might appear to be sluggishness when it comes to stewarding SPJ's valuable (and limited) resources and lending SPJ's good name to public debates.
I tasked members of SPJ's national LDF, freedom of information and journalism ethics committees with considering Mr. Krayeske's request. These volunteers -- nearly a dozen journalists who live outside Connecticut -- graciously gave up several hours they could have spent on other things. They took less than a week to make recommendations that resulted in the statement SPJ released yesterday.
Shortly after that statement's distribution, I received this note from Mr. Krayeske:
Subject : Thank You
I just saw the press release, and I am deeply appreciative of the statement.
I have sent it out to my press contacts here in CT, and hopefully it gets some attention.
Thanks you again for your support.
Peace,
Ken Krayeske
SPJ's statement got attention all right. Clearly, Mr. Pattis' blog suggests he didn't see it coming -- an indication that he and Mr. Krayeske have some communication issues they need to work out.
Or maybe Mr. Pattis' rant is part of some brilliant legal strategy! Mr. Krayeske sent another e-mail to an SPJ official today. It states, in part:
"While I am grateful for SPJ's support, as I have expressed, I think my lawyer is working in my best interests. I think his reaction was to the timing of this, more than anything else. I am sorry if it confused people in SPJ."
We're not the ones who are confused. We're just the ones who, regardless of childish insults posted about us on blogs, believe that people who stand peacefully in public places to take photos of public events don't deserve to be arrested.