The Story Behind the Story Or, How I Became a Finalist for Worst People of 2006
1. We Represent Murray Waas
Murray Waas wormed his way into my life last June, when I received a letter from a K Street lawyer named Lanny Davis. Davis, I soon learned, is a prominent and connected lobbyist who once served as special counsel to Bill Clinton. His letter came on law firm stationery and began with two words that every editor learns to dread: “We represent…” It doesn’t matter what follows those two words, the translation is always the same: We represent trouble for you. Your life just got a little worse.
“We represent the Washington-based investigative reporter Murray Waas,” the letter said. Maybe I had heard that name once or twice, or more likely seen the byline, but I knew nothing about Waas. Since then, however, I’ve come to know him pretty well—and to cherish the days when I don’t get an e-mail or a phone call from him.
I’m the executive editor of the Chicago Reader, which makes me the senior editorial hand in the group that owns Washington City Paper. (The companies are separate but owned by the same people.) Technically, City Paper editor Erik Wemple and his staff report to me. So although Davis’ letter was sent to a few people in the Reader office, it was my problem.
As Davis saw it, my problem was that Wemple and City Paper writer Jason Cherkis were doing an article on Waas that appeared to be “a rare instance of journalism motivated by personal animus.” Davis wrote:
…we believe that Mssrs. Cherkis and Wemple may be incapable of pursuing this story in an unbiased manner and writing a balanced article. We propose that new reporters be assigned to the story or, at the very least, that the current writers proceed only under the strictest editorial supervision.
Please find attached some examples of the unprofessional behavior of Mr. Cherkis in particular. These examples demonstrate personal animus against Mr. Waas, and cause him concern that Mssrs. Cherkis and Wemple intend to harm his reputation and livelihood.
As Davis knew well, the suggestion that the writers proceed under the “strictest editorial supervision” and the words “harm his reputation and livelihood” were the equivalent of a 4-foot-tall neon sign flashing “LIBEL SUIT! LIBEL SUIT!”
Attached to Davis’ letter was a document helpfully titled “Examples of Unprofessional and Abusive Behavior by Washington City Paper Reporters Erik Wemple and Jason Cherkis.” Among other things, it alleged that:
• In the midst of a contentious phone interview in which Cherkis and Waas each brought up the other’s past, Cherkis began reading court papers from Waas’ divorce. “Let me break this down for you. All right?” Cherkis is alleged to have said. “This is where the real fun begins….Here we go. This is what your own wife has to say about you.…I mean, do you like this? Are you having fun yet.”
• In a discussion of Waas’ bout with cancer and his subsequent malpractice suit against George Washington University Medical Center (in which he was awarded damages of $650,000), Cherkis blamed Waas for contracting his disease: “Let me like explain this to you. OK? You went through a fucking hell of a shit.…but from what I know about it, the whole thing was your fault. I mean, I have read through the court files….You never did what the doctors told you to do. You fucking did this to yourself.”
• In response to Waas’ contention that he had tried to keep his cancer a private matter, Cherkis said: “You told everybody you had cancer! Don’t make it out to be a state secret!…If you really, ah, really wanted to keep it a secret…you wouldn’t have passed it out as part of your business card.”
• Talking about a document that Cherkis was asking Waas to provide, Waas objected that he had no obligation to act as Cherkis’ researcher. Cherkis erupted at this insult to his journalistic pride: “Listen buddy you’re just digging through your fucking shit and finding a file. How hard is that, asshole? God! Don’t fucking tell me that you’re acting like my researcher ever again.”
There was more, but these were the most damning examples in Davis’ letter.
May. 18 - 24, 2007 (Vol. 27, #20)






Comments
10:30 pm
God you're an asshole Lenehan. So are your reporters. If you want to latch onto the leg of someone who is a biigger media star than you are why go after Murray Waas when there's much bigger fish who are real jerks to go after like Bill O'Reilly or Tim Russert? Hmmmm? I'll tel ya why, you're an asshole and a wimp.
10:34 am
methinks the arsehole doth protest too much.
3:25 am
Michael, you were right the first time; anything beyond the work is unacceptable. And this piece goes so, so far beyond Waas' work that what it does have to say on that subject feels very much like an afterthought.
It's not surprising that you, along with the guys at City Paper, grew to loathe Murray Waas. It is surprising, and totally indefensible, that you let it completely overwhelm your basic news judgement.
I don't recall ever reading a profile that read this way. Not even "The Final Days." You've made a terrible mistake, and in so doing perpetuated the growing sense that much of the press corps simply lacks the sack to go after the powerful, so it goes after the average joe instead.
9:54 am
City Paper sure used lots of resources to write an "expose" of a not very important or significant journalist. The piece, and the 10 page explanation of it, are extraordinarily unprofessional. Yes, how is Murray Waas supposed to defend himself against this extremely unfavorable publicity. It's a hatchet job! Shame on you!
6:22 pm
Well, it is good to read this too... all 8500 words of it... to see this guy ain't have no bias either. He seems obsessed with his subjct as much as with himself.
9:58 pm
Yeah, the editor is as self asorbed as much as his writers are obsessed.
8,500 words on "The story about the story?" Was this Watergate? Is Mike lenehan ben bradlee in some walter mitty fantasy world?
And what the hell has this guy have to do with anything? Is he even with the City Paper?
Tyhe whole thing is just bizzare, if u ask me. Why did they go after this guy with such a vengance? And is it proper thing for a newspaper, even a rag like the CPaper?
5:27 pm
And the editor goes on and one about how he oversees hsi reporter's bad reporting. Yuk. Nobody read the piece, so who wants to read the piece about the peice?
They're their own meta-meta-meta.
Self absorped as much as vindictive and obsessed about their subjects.
Yuk. Yuk. Yuk. Masturbatory is the only way to read this. They shouldn't use a rag even to do that. They should find themselves a Yahoo chatr oom.
1:29 pm
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! ohbgnxwuqe