Debbie Nathan and the NCRJ Maligned by National Public Radio

Debbie Nathan and the NCRJ Maligned by National Public Radio

October 20, 2007. The work that our Directors and Advisors do as journalists,
book authors, lawyers, and teachers is totally independent of the work they do
for the NCRJ. On Friday October 19th, however, the NCRJ was maligned by the
National Public Radio program, All Things Considered, in an effort to discredit
NCRJ Director, Debbie Nathan, for articles she has written about former

New York Times reporter, Kurt Eichenwald. Debbie and I sent NPR the following
responses. As background, you might be interested in reading some of Debbie’s
work about Eichenwald:

From Robert B. Chatelle:

I am the Executive Director of the National Center for Reason and Justice.

Of the 21 cases we sponsor, the only one mentioned on “All things Considered” is that of Paul Shanley, whose case we took on after our investigation found no corroborating evidence against him, apart from the unvalidated and indeed often contradicted “recovered memories” of his accusers. (I also attended his trial.) “All Things Considered” gave the impression that we spend immense sums on his defense; last year, Shanley received the princely sum of $480 — all from a single donor. The lion’s share of our 2006 disbursements went to Ryan Smith, Bernard Baran, and Jesse Friedman. (Our 990 is available at the NCRJ web site.)

When working as a journalist, Debbie Nathan does not speak for the NCRJ. Nevertheless, I know her work well enough to say that it is a gross misrepesentation of her position to say that she considers federal child-pornography and child-sex abuse laws “too strict.”

The NCRJ is an innocence project for people falsely accused of crimes against children. Of the hundreds of pleas for help we have received, we have opted, after thorough independent investigation, to sponsor only 21. (During sponsorship discussions, Debbie usually plays the Devil’s Advocate.) In addition to disbursing aid to these people, we also work to promote rational, scientifically proven responses to the problems of sexual abuse, both for victims and offenders.

I feel very privileged to work for the NCRJ. I was most disappointed to see our fine organization misrepresented on “All Things Considered.”

From Debbie Nathan:

David Folkenflik’s piece about Kurt Eichenwald for “All Things Considered” spent excessive, uncritical time on Eichenwald’s version of events, while portraying my role in the unfolding story superficially, and wrongly discrediting me. Meanwhile, larger issues raised by this sad saga went ignored.

As Folkenflik did report, I wrote an op-ed for Salon last year. However, it did not criticize or attack Eichenwald, as Folkenflik implied. Instead, my op-ed asked how Eichenwald had managed to write a story implying he’d looked at child porn on the web, when no one — not even journalists — are allowed to examine such material for research purposes. My point was not to attack the writer but to say that all journalists need a way to look, and to do it openly. We need to know what the real problems are with child porn, versus what is simply hype and government misinformation. Who in the media could disagree?

But in response, Eichenwald threatened to sue me for libel and successfully pressured Salon to remove my piece from its site. Folkenflik did not mention that Eichenwald’s attacks on me were vicious. I was a “maggot,” he said, “a kook.” He wrote me that if I ever said anything about him again that he deemed wrong, he would financially “wipe me off the face of the earth.” I worried that I would lose my home. I didn’t know what my husband and I would do about our son’s college tuition.

What unethical (and illegal) secrets did this man have in his closet to call out such crazy ire?

Those secrets have been emerging during the last several months in large part due to my reporting. When all the revelations are out (and I believe there are more to come), I look forward to returning to the larger issues they’ve raised.

Again, the main one is that civil society — including journalists! — must be able to examine all aspects of human behavior, including the fact of child pornography. We need to do this using above-board, ethical means. But we can’t nowadays; looking is illegal, and penalties draconian. One well-regarded journalist, Larry Matthews, was convicted and imprisoned a few years ago for doing precisely what Eichenwald did: pose as a pedophile to get a look inside the world of online child pornography. Wouldn’t it have been great if Matthews — and Eichenwald — had been able to do their reporting the right way? We need to change the law.

The NPR piece did not touch on this important media problem, even though I reviewed it with Folkenflik during our interview.

And by focusing almost entirely on Eichenwald’s personal story of epilepsy-induced amnesia, Folkenflk avoided another question: What’s the real issue when a journalist, using pseudonyms, pays a source lots of money and joins the source’s illegal porn website as an administrator? Is it the claim that disease made him forget to tell editors he misbehaved? Or is it the indisputable fact that he misbehaved in the first place, before “forgetting” ?

Then, there’s the question of Eichenwald’s sincerity in Folkenflik’s “Reporter’s Notebook” piece, where Eichenwald complains he wanted to tell the press about his epilepsy, but his critics never bothered to contact him.

Unmentioned was that I asked to interview him multiple times between March and August. I asked in person, by phone message, and by email. Each time, he responded by threatening to sue me.

Folkenflik told listeners he spent “months” researching his Eichenwald story. Yet he called me — Eichenwald’s main press critic, who has done a year of reporting on this story — only a week before he aired his piece. When we spoke then, he said he hadn’t read the 11,000-word article I’d done months earlier for Counterpunch, outlining numerous inaccuracies and biases in Eichenwald’s work on Justin Berry for the Times. Eichenwald strenuously threatened to sue me and Counterpunch for libel if this piece were published. When it finally came out, his lawyer sent Counterpunch a letter saying nothing was libelous. On “All Things Considered” the Times went unchallenged when an editor claimed that Eichenwald’s Berry story is like “money in the bank” because no one has shown it to be inaccurate.

How much sloppier and more credulous can NPR reporting get?

Then, there’s Folkenflik’s observation – clearly meant to be critical — that I’m a board member and donor of the National Center for Reason and Justice.

NCRJ is an “innocence project” for people with strong claims of having been falsely accused or convicted of harming children. It’s a civil rights, human rights and education non-profit that sponsors and does fund raising for about 20 cases. NPR noted that my NCRJ affiliation was not reported in stories I’ve written about Eichenwald’s work — as though this were a problem.

It’s not a problem — though Eichenwald has spent months trying to make it seem like one by dragging NCRJ’s name through unrelated court filings. He’s done this to deflect attention from the real problem: his own work.

I have over 25 years’ experience as an advocacy journalist, working mainly for alternative publications such as The Texas Observer, the Village Voice, The Nation, and many others (and I’ve published in mainstream press such as New York Times, Los Angeles Times and The Atlantic Monthly). My writing has won many national awards, including the H.L. Mencken Award for Investigative Journalism, Medill Journalism School’s John Bartlow Martin Award for Public Service Journalism, and the PEN West prize for feature journalism. My writing stands on its own. It belongs to a proud genre in which writers frankly identify themselves as politically involved, while following a strict code of journalism ethics.

My affiliation with the National Center for Reason and Justice is part and parcel of my advocacy journalism. For years on my website, I have prominently described myself as a NCRJ director and donor. If I write about a case NCRJ has elected to sponsor, I indicate in the article that I’m a board member. I did this recently in a piece published by The New York Times. NCRJ has nothing to do with Eichenwald or with anyone accused or convicted of crimes as a result of his reporting.

For NPR to ape Eichenwald’s sad obsession with my NCRJ affiliation seems McCarthyist. Still, every cloud has a silver lining. By mentioning NCRJ, National Public Radio has told the country about this fine organization and its work challenging false accusations and wrongful convictions. I hope people who hear the radio program will take time to visit NCRJ’s website at www.ncrj.org to learn more and perhaps get involved.