WHO ARE JOE CLARK AND MARIA CUVILLON? WHO ARE “DC MADAME” DEBORAH JEANE PALFREY’S ACCUSERS?

“It’s my understanding that there really was no investigation.”
–Deborah Jeane Palfrey to the author.

Washington D.C.–”Do you realize that the information contained in the search warrant was 3-to-3 1/2, to 5-years-old?” states an exasperated Jeane Palfrey. The first thing one notes in speaking with Palfrey is her directness and approachability. She’s a very well-spoken woman who sees the implications of her case, and that they go well-beyond her own peculiar predicament. I point-out that the AP used the same excuse in October of 2006 as ABC recently did for not naming names on their 20/20 segment–she calls ABC’s decision “curious.”

Palfrey’s clients might have included wealthy doctors and lawyers in Washington and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs, but now well-known names have so far surfaced, said a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing. The escort service, Pamela Martin & Associates, advertised in newspapers, on Web sites and in the Yellow Pages. It operated since 1993 “as an out-call prostitution business” of college-educated women with other jobs, the affidavit says. (AP, 10.10.2006)

The piece is careful not to use the words “confidential informants,” but that’s exactly what they were and are. Palfrey adds, “They would have had no knowledge of who the clients were at that point [October 9th when the interview for the above quote took place]. These folks did not have a black book–there never was one. They passed-up 46 lbs. of phone records…they were already making statements about the doctors and lawyers on the 9th of October.” Could this suggest they already had an prepared outline of what to charge Ms. Palfrey with?

It appears at this point that the prosecution has lost the script, with the defendant shut-out of court–an obvious abrogation of due process, a Kafka hell. The good news is that the Supreme Court could be her venue-of-choice soon. Interestingly, the decision is being pushed by Justice Clarence Thomas. Also of-note: her “gentleman’s agreement” not to divulge any information expired after the 20/20 broadcast (they wanted the other nine years of her phone records too), and the gag order barring her from releasing more phone records appears to be floundering with a lot of back-peddling by Federal District Judge Gladys Kessler.

The AP article on October 10th, 2006: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061010/news_1n10hookers.html

More primary-documents: http://www.deborahjeanepalfrey.com

And there are plenty of non-conglomerate print outlets that I enjoy. I’m a big reader of the alternative press and we have some great outlets here in Canada.

You’re right — the evening news in the US is very much like ET. But to my mind, when I think of journalism my brain goes to print and radio before TV. That’s my own bias. I prefer my news without visuals as they can cloud the line up….if it bleeds it leads…

Nice chatting with you. So, do you plan to take your minor and work in the field?

I was a journalism major many years ago (and wasn’t always this far removed from the profession) and believe me, I’m as jaded as anyone (but perhaps not as jaded as only a journalism student can be) about the media.

Sure some members of the media lack ethics but a blanket statement like “with the exception of a few, the media have no ethics anymore” is a bit black and white, no? At least to me it is.

I enjoy the gray areas of life — there’s more room there to mill around — and there’s good company too. Also the drinks are better.

Your professors are right; things are not what they used to be. But when were they ever? When were the good old days journalism of which we speak?

Surely not in the day of Walter Duranty of the New York Times? (That ethical breech was in the thirties.)

Or what about the Janet Cooke — only after she won the Pulitzer Prize was her story about the composite “Jimmy” exposed — that was a long time ago too relatively speaking (early 80s).

There are plenty examples of the media’s lack of principles…and this phenomenon is not recent. My head hurts remembering this stuff from my own school days…

Is it getting worse? Maybe. Has it all gone to hell? I hope not. No more than it ever has.

I would not like to live in a society where we didn’t have all kinds of media outlets — the good, the bad, the sensational and the self-published both on- and offline (here we are!)

I’m not naïve. I know very well that it’s a big business (so are pharmaceuticals and as much as I dislike some of the antics of big pharma, I very much like taking a pill — discovered for huge profit — that keeps me healthy). Money and eyeballs rule.

But the good ones are still out there. I’m not saying that all (or any!) journalists are objective seekers of truth. Ha! But there are good ones and bad ones and some in the middle…that gray area where they serve the best martinis and the conversation is alway lively.

In your class do they not talk about any journalist that still adhere to the principles? More than just a handful. That makes me a bit sad….

“You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life.”

(Sorry, some old person humour there!)

Strawberry - I agree with your point about Clinton though - that lynch mob was the height of hypocrisy. Couldn’t quite believe it myself at the time.

Christine - OK, so not for the money… but ABC are going to benefit big time, right? Can you imagine ABC’s ratings from this…everybody tuning in to see whose name is going to be revealed. :0 I suppose there is nothing against ABC hunting down those people, and “outing” them, but it seems a strange thing for them to do. Unless it helps their ratings….And, media ethics - I can hardly wait for that debate (I was tempted to add “What media ethics?”..lol.

Not for money — at least not from ABC — not unless things have really changed in the media world. Sure some “news” outlets do pay for scoops but it’s considered very bad practice. If she wanted cash, the National Enquirer would have been her first stop.

Indeed, the National Enquirer is well known for its checkbook journalism as are tabloids (both in print and on TV). They do pay for information, this is well-known in the industry but (most) reputable news outlets do not — there have been exceptions of course.

I’m ready now for an onslaught about media ethics — a hot topic! — but it’s not an oxymoron yet in my mind at least.

if your an incompetent in your job, you should lose it.

(and if i was married to hillary, well.. compared to her shrewish looks, anyone would look good)