April 05, 2005

'I am writing to voice a measure of concern...'

Phil Busse's Letter On Willamette Week Pulitzer Nomination

For better or worse, media wonks such as ourselves have been intrigued about the varying characterizations of the letter Phil Busse wrote back in March to the Pulitzer Prize people regarding the nomination of a Willamette Week reporter for his story on the Neil Goldschmidt scandal.

The first we had heard of the letter was in a now-deleted weblog posting from a WW intern yesterday, but it also appears to have worked its way into the hands of the Portland Tribune.

Fortunately, we have some very helpful readers out there, who sometimes appear out of the blue to toss us something of interest. In this case, a copy of the Busse letter (pdf) itself.

Since, after we posted the intern's characterization of the letter, Busse himself showed up in the comments here to argue that his letter was not "against" the WW winning a Pulitzer, we figure that people might want to just read the letter for themselves and make up their own minds.

Over the course of the letter, Busse says he has a "measure of concern" over the nomination, was "startled" to read of the nomination, and says that "a closer look raises questions reading its worth as a Pulitzer nominee".

We suppose we will leave it to our readers whether or not that counts as being "against" the nomination, although you likely can gather what our opinion is on that count.

Posted at 01:34 PM | PermalinkComments (9) | TrackBacks (2)
More In Media

« Previous Next »

Comments (9)

  1. A posteriori on 05 Apr 2005

    After reading the letter Busse wrote, and his concerns regarding Nigel's Pulitzer nomination one thing stands out to me- he in on way mentions Nigel's writing capability and skills. That was probably first and foremost in the Pulitzer committee minds'; it was a well written, time-consistent, thorough article.

    Busse should more be thankful no one is peering into his Law School writing background.

  2. Caryn on 05 Apr 2005

    When Busse notes that the story wasn't uncovered "in the traditional, hard-digging investigative sense of the word," one has to wonder if he even has a clue what investigative journalism is. Nigel got a tip and relentlessly followed up on it. Woodward and Bernstein famously also received a tip and followed up on it. That's investigative journalism. Take into consideration why it is that Nigel was even given that tip; it is because he has a proven record as a serious, committed, fact-based, investigative journalist. Also consider that during that same period that Nigel was furiously following up on that tip, Busse was glad-handing it around town on a publicity-seeking run for mayor. Dude, you can't have it both ways. On another note, as was made clear in Nigel's story, the current ownership of Willamette Week has no affiliation with the original owners; Busse purposely makes it seem in his letter that the ownership was in cahoots. His statements are verging on libel. I guess he doesn't know what that is, either. I'm sorry, that letter he wrote was an indictment of his character and the level at which he understands journalism. I think the Mercury is a courageouly funny newspaper and Humphrey a comic genius. Let's leave it at that. In the spirit of full-disclosure, I worked at WW a few years ago, but I don't live in Oregon anymore.

  3. no one in particular on 05 Apr 2005

    Yeah, I have to admit, I had the exact same first reaction when I heard Zusman had won the award: "But that story was just handed to him! All he had to do was verify it!"

    But then I thought about it more and realized that's exactly how investigative journalism works. You can't go around interviewing every acquantance of every public figure hoping to find some dirt; someone has to give you a tip, and then you work doggedly to try to figure out if you can prove it or not.

    I'm not even a journalist and I figured that out. Busse calls himself a journalist, but apparently still doesn't understand how it works.

  4. Justin on 05 Apr 2005

    I want to thank Mr. Busse for his courage in writing that letter to the Pulitzer Committee.

    Because of him, I recently fired off my own letter to the Pulitzer Committee, regarding Walt Bogdanich's story on the corporate cover up of railway crossings.

    I mean please, who doesn't know its dangerous to cross a railway. Everytime I walk by the railway near my house, I always think, "Well, this is an obvious Pulitzer Prize winning story just waiting to be written."

    Also, I know for a fact that the NY Daily News and the NY Post also had information regarding the dangers of railway crossings. The NYTimes just rushed their story and scooped the competition. It's shameless.

    Frankly, this win by Walt and Nigel only serves to diminsh the Pulitzer's credibility.

    So thankyou, Mr. Busse, you are a obviously a classy guy.

  5. E Patrick Francke on 06 Apr 2005

    I, too, have read Mr. Busse's letter to the Pulitzer committee. Mr. Busse does not have the facts correct on a couple of items.

    Neil Goldschmidt did not have an "affair". The Oregonian was roasted for using that term, and rightly so. He raped, repeatedly over a two year period, a minor girl who was the daughter of his neighbor, a friend and campaign worker. He has ruined several people's lives, including his own, by this selfish and reprehensible act.

    The story was not dropped on Nigel and Phil's doorstep on the same day, and there was no race to get the story published by WW ahead of the Tribune. Both the WW and the Trib did a lot of fact checking prior to publishing. Their lawyers got involved to make sure there was no problem with libel. Goldschmidt was contacted for comment. He went public with the Oregonian to try to put his spin on the rape the day before the WW article went to press.

    Perhaps we need to hear from Phil Stanford and Nigel Jaquiss regarding their roles in this matter.

    I don't know Mr. Busse or his publication, but in light of what he wrote to the Pulitzer people, his paper should be read with a large shaker of salt close at hand.

    Regards
    E Pat Francke

  6. torridjoe on 06 Apr 2005

    I noticed as well that Busse refers to the propriety of awarding a Pulitzer to the _paper_, as a way to indict the founder of the paper and bring doubt to the originality of the reporter's enterprise.

    Pulitzers are as much for reporters as papers, and it's entirely unfair to sell Nigel short on the basis of who set up the gig whereby he gets his checks.

    I also hear that Woodward basically had the Watergate story dropped in his lap by Deep Throat. That lazy fucker!

  7. Brian on 07 Apr 2005

    I don't know how Phil Busse can possibly claim he wasn't "against" Nigel and WW winning the Pulitzer. What other motivation did he have for writing it? As rival papers, WW and the Mercury have had their bickering and so on over the years, all of which has been relatively tame. But this really erodes Busse's integrity. Even if his concerns were valid, it would have been better to keep quiet. This letter makes him seem small. (Full disclosure: I write for WW.)

  8. ex-seattleite on 07 Apr 2005

    Are you kidding me?!?!

    Phil Busse whining about the integrity of a former editor to his rival paper 30 some-odd years ago?!

    Bloody hell, he should talk! Everett True, Brendan Fraser, Mark Lindquist, Dan Savage..
    Let alone Kathleen Wilson, Sean Nelson, and Charles Mudede...
    You say these guys have not engaged in what might be construed as less than integrity-filled behaviour, Phil? Come on!

    PDX, don't let the wool get pulled over your eyes; Mr. Busse's own employer has had many an editor doing many a bad bad thing.

  9. Dave J. on 08 Apr 2005

    I would have had a lot more respect for Phil's anti-WW letter had he written it using the same amazing Nostradamous-esque talents he used to write a review of a restaurant that has yet to open (see his "into the future" review of the Gotham Bldg. restaurant), say, back in January.

Trackbacks (2)

  1. Why WW's Pulitzer matters on 06 Apr 2005

    When I heard earlier this week that Willamette Week had won the Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting with it's story about the 30 year secret of Neil Goldschmidt's sexual abuse of a 14 year-old girl I was very happy to...

  2. Weeklies In Action on 07 Apr 2005

    I posted a short blurb about Phil Busse's letter to the Pulitzer People on the PMUGYG, but then I was out of town for a few days and I came back to see quite an interesting discussion going on over...