“Madam” Threatens To Name And Shame
1 05 2007There are going to be some particularly nervous people in Washington in the coming weeks. Having kittens might be a tame description. Slow death might be closer. Or how about “best served cold” as in revenge. Or as in subpoena.
Deborah Jean Palfrey threatens to name and shame Washington’s elite
It’s one thing to have the police checking up and calling you in the middle of work, or worse, in the middle of dinner – to ask you if you’ve been a naughty boy. It’s quite another if a news/media network calls you up to ask if er… you have been a client of a certain “Madam”. But that looks like what’s shaping up in Washington, as the Deborah Jean Palfrey show gets on the road, leaving certain mayhem in its wake.
Tsk, tsk. Scandal, hypocrisy, comeuppance, sex and power. Not necessarily in that order.
Deborah Jean Palfrey has been accused of running a prostitution ring for the power elite of Washington. She handed the telephone numbers of 15,000 clients to a US television station last week, saying that she would identify as many well-known figures as possible to subpoena them as defence witnesses. According to The Times, the telephone list weighs about 46lb (21kg) and it might just as well be dynamite as for the potential damage it can do. ABC is going to help “track down witnesses.” Who will all be subpoenaed to appear in court if they find them.
Some high-ranking Washington figures have already resigned. There are likely to be several more.
I don’t know why, but I’m really amused at this story. In a rather twisted way admittedly.
Especially this:
The official who resigned abruptly on Friday night was Randall Tobias, a deputy secretary of state and President Bush’s co-ordinator for foreign aid. He masterminded a policy that required recipients of Aids assistance to condemn prostitution. Mr Tobias, 65 and married, quit after being contacted by ABC, which is in possession of Ms Palfrey’s telephone list.
He is said to have told ABC that he had called Pamela Martin & Associates, Ms Palfrey’s escort service, “to have gals come over to the condo to give me a massage”, but not for sex.
Yeah. Right. Everyone is going to believe that. Especially your wife. People in glass houses and all that.
But Ms Palfrey says her enterprise was a legal one, that provided “high-end” clients with services such as “nude dancing and massage, not sex.”
So, of course Mr Tobias is important as a potential witness, given that she wants witnesses to testify to exactly that fact. Ms Palfery said she was” genuinely sorry for Mr Tobias and his family”, but that his evidence was extremely valuable exculpatory evidence. She’s not kidding. He, along with 1,000s of other “clients” might have a problem agreeing.
And according to the Times:
Mr Sibley, Ms Palfrey’s lawyer, said that he had already been contacted by lawyers for five Washington men asking if their clients’ names could be kept private. They will probably be among the millions tuning into ABC on Friday night when the network, and Ms Palfrey, are expected to reveal more names.
I can’t imagine why she gave the 15,000 client telephone numbers to ABC News though. I’m thinking money. Or a huge scoop for ABC if they manage to track down the “witnesses”. I bet those witnesses are thinking something completely unprintable right now, as they sit on the edge of their seats.
Not only at the mercy of Ms Palfry. Worse. At the mercy of ABC News.
Watch out for more resignations.
The Revelation. Episode I.
Original Story by Tim Reid for The TimeOnline – May 1
Technorati Tags: Deborah Jean Palfrey
That’s why I’d never last as a politician. If I was them, I’d be like, “so the f*** what?” I hate when it’s such a Scaaandaaal! every time an important person does some sex-related thing that everybody else does. The fact that a guy likes hookers doesn’t make him any more or less capable at his job. Hell, look what we ended up with that “he’s got to be mawral” line of thinking…we condemned one of the best presidents we’ve ever had because of a BJ and ended up with the worst maggot to ever sit in the Oval Office, bar none.
i second that, it should be about how well they do the job, if its breaking the law, then yes. but so what if he goes to a hooker, does that make him or her (a bit of equality), less able to do the job. no
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)
“I can’t imagine why she gave the 15,000 client telephone numbers to ABC News though. I’m thinking money. Or a huge scoop for ABC if they manage to track down the “witnesses”.”
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.
Strawberry and Mercurior - Y’know I’m curious to see if any of them do refuse to resign… except of of course those who have made a career of preaching “fam’ly values” “abstinence” and “thou shalt not” won’t have a leg to stand on. If their name is in the big fat telephone book and they’ve been clients of “escort services” then it will be interesting, because that’ll mean they’re hypocrites. They probably thought they had some assurance of client confidentiality. But ever since Heidi Fleisch, I think that’s really been wishful thinking.
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.
Oh yes, absolutley! ABC will benefit big time. And she will too …the publicity from a reputable news agency is worth more to her in her case — it makes her more credible. I could go on and on (to everyone’s boredom probably!) about the media as I work in a related industry. I’m not a journalist for the record :-).
With the exception of a few, honey the media have no ethics anymore. I’m a journalism minor, and my “principles of journalism” class was more like “principles of journalism and why the media doesn’t follow them anymore”.
strawberry muffin, please call me anything but ‘honey’ ;-)….I like Christine but I also answer to Chris. That stupid woman who posts on Britgirl’s blog is also fine. I’m easygoing and not easily offended. Otherwise, I’d refrain from posting on blogs.
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!)
Four names that can claim journalism ethics: Murrow, Cronkite, Woodward, Bernstein. Then conglomerates bought out all the news networks and I can barely tell the difference between evening news and Entertainment Tonight.
You and I agree on those. Edward R. Murrow…I still remember listening to his WWII broadcasts in school. Riveting. I see your point about television. But I’m not an American so there’s that too….it’s not quite the same here. But is there any local radio that you respect? Where I live we do have quality local radio reportage. I’ve always been a radio girl myself. There’s something very special and warm about radio.
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’ve conducted a 2hr. interview with Ms. Palfrey recently–here’s the first article:
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