Big Head DC is a respectable publication on politics in DC. I enjoy reading it. But I did not like one of Big Head DC's blog articles where he -- the "he" is Rob Capriccioso (pictured) who's the editor of Big Head DC -- accused ABC News anchor Sam Donaldson of being a client of a DC madam named Deborah Jeane Palfrey and
basically just because his name happened to be in her phone book and even though Deborah Jeane Palfrey who's the escort, explained to Rob that she had just called him to explain a phone mix-up, and not to offer services.
Plus,
Jossip explained "Except all Palfrey had to say to Capriccioso was that she made a single call to Donaldson — to explain a phone call mix up, not to offer her services...Not that it stopped Capriccioso’s report.."
Rob went ahead and wrote an account that in my view smeared Sam Donaldson and left out that the matter seemed to be a total misunderstanding. I wrote that Big Head smeared Sam Donaldson. That's my view and I'm sticking to it.
Now, Rob, who thinks he can bully people,
has threatened to sue me. HA! This is what Rob wrote to me:
To Zennie:
It has come to my attention that one of your blog posts contains factually incorrect information about Big Head DC and our reporting:
http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2007/11/rob-capriccioso-smears-sam-donaldson.html
Sam Donaldson's number does indeed appear more than once in the records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, which is exactly what Big Head DC reported. By you saying that "Rob Capriccioso Smears Sam Donaldson With Wrong News" and "this blogger got it wrong," you are libeling the reputation of Big head DC. As the editor of Big Head DC, I ask that you remove or edit your post to accurately reflect our reporting.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Rob To which I showed Rob how the Internet had rose up against him. For example, let's take
the website i linked to in the orginal story, and the one that was the basis for my assertion that Big Head DC smeared Sam Donaldson, the one called Radar and apparently one where Rob had a relationship with the writers there -- not any more.
In Radar, D.C. CONFIDENTIAL explained that
"Capriccioso found out about Donaldson's involvement from Radar. We were looking into the Donaldson rumor and stupidly asked Capriccioso, who claimed to have a relationship with Palfrey, to talk to her about it. We decided not to pursue the item for reasons explained below, so he picked it up for himself without so much as a "thank you" or heads-up." DC CONFIDENTIAL goes on..
"After receiving many calls from Sam Donaldson leaving pleasantries for his releative [sic] on her personal cell number voicemail in the mid-2000s, Palfrey herself decided to give him a call to relay what she assumed to be a mistake. 'Would you please tell your relative to give out the correct phone number?' Palfrey recalls asking Donaldson. 'I was sick and tired of getting these phone calls from people all over Washington asking for his relative.' When she talked to Donaldson, he was immediately panicked and asked how she got his number (she says she didn't tell him that she ran an escort service). She explained the whole story to him about her receiving messages that were obviously not intending for her."
When Radar expressed skepticism, Capriccioso wrote back: "I pushed her hard on that—asked her if she had an affinity for Sam for some reason, and told her that many people would think it was such an odd coincidence that he dialed the wrong number ... she insisted that that was the truth."
The only parts of the above story that made it into Capriccioso's post are the parts about Palfrey confirming a call to Donaldson and Donaldson panicking at the call. The innocent explanation Palfrey offered apparently wasn't relevant.
Radar eventually dropped the item after being waved off of it by a source close to Larry Flynt, the porn magnate who outed Vitter and has been poring over the list. The source insisted that if there was anything to the Donaldson rumor, Flynt would have reported it. Given that, and Palfrey's insistence that Donaldson was not a client, we couldn't sully the man's name in the absence of any other evidence—even if we think Palfrey's story is bullshit. Capriccioso, who didn't return a call for comment, apparently didn't have that problem. Wow. Which means that DC CONFIDENTIAL didn't even want to run with the story that Rob ran with. Why? Because it makes Donaldson look like he did something in hiring an escort that it's not clear he did at all. Plus, not even Larry Flynt reported the story because he considered it baseless.
Thus, Rob's actions are a real defamation of character in anyone's book, and certainly mine. But Rob thinks he has a case to threaten me. Let's check his claim for fun.
What Rob does not understand is that several bloggers don't back his story, thus leaving it fair game for attack. It's impossible to make a defimation claim stick if the plaintiff does not have a good reputation to start with and in this case of this story, Rob is toast -- he looks bad, indeed.
Moreover, I can state my opinion and I did that. Too bad for him. Moreover, Rob -- by virtue of his blogging and his terrible reporting being all over the Internet on the Donaldson story -- has become a public figure who can be criticized and that's what I did.
And here's the smoking gun: Blogactive has written that Big Head DC's story was so not credible they considered never linking to his work again!
Here's what they wrote: More discrediting
I've taken some heat in the comments of my last post. Please note that I never said it didn't happen. I simply said that it APPEARED that BigHeadDC was hustled by a hustler.
I contacted Rob at BigHeadDC and asked him specifically about the information he posted with regard to Sam Donaldson's number appearing in the DC Madam's, Jeane Palfrey. Once the story was discredited by Radar, I decided to dig a little deeper. It was only about five minutes before I was able to put my shovel down on this angle to the story.
I happen to know Jeane Palfrey. So, I wrote a note last night:
From: Michael Rogers - PageOne
Date: Nov 27, 2007 3:21 PM
To: jeanepalfrey@_______.com
Subject: Jeane...
Jeane...
Can you let me know if this article is accurate and whether you have any on or off teh record comments about it?
Thanks!
Mike
In less than 12 hours, Jeane wrote back:
From: Jeane Palfrey
Date: Nov 28, 2007 12:32 AM
To: Michael Rogers
Mike… the Radar article is correct.
-Jeane
This exchange, along with numerous friends in the media telling me about other other stories that were wrong on BigHeadDC, has initiated a review with Nick Langewis, the associate editor of PageOneQ, over whether BigHeadDC will ever be linked to from Q again. If we decide not to link there again, it will be the first time a site has been permanently banned from PageOneQ.
In this business, accuracy is everything. It sure is, right Rob? Even
Jossip has exposed Rob's tendency to TRY and bully other bloggers into compliance with his biased reporting. Check what Rob wrote to a Leigh Ann Boutwell , who's Jossip's managing editor.
From: Rob Capriccioso
Date: Nov 13, 2007 11:02 AM
Subject: From Rob Capriccioso / action requested
To: Leigh Ann Boutwell
Hi Leigh Ann,
What John Cook wrote yesterday in his Fresh Intelligence update is
exceptionally unprofessional, and riddled with errors. To clarify, a
Big Head DC staffer received more confirming information regarding the
“DC Madam” / Sam Donaldson story, and we ran with it. Neither I, nor
Big Head DC, had any obligation to run this story with Radar Online.
Apparently, John Cook felt differently, and published a story that not
only misspells the name of Palfrey in a couple of different ways, but
also makes it seem as if the story isn’t true, which it is.
Cook also quoted several off the record e-mails between myself and
Tyler Gray, which, as you know, is very unprofessional. I find this
quite odd, since Tyler, too, has shared much off the record
information with me via e-mail that he has asked me not to publish.
Cook also says in the item that I didn’t return requests for comment,
which is not at all true, as you will see from the e-mails below,
which Radar had in its possession before the update story ran.
To resolve this issue ASAP, I am asking that Radar remove, or amend
with this added information, Cook’s false Fresh Intelligence piece.
Sincerely,
Rob
–
Rob Capriccioso | Publisher & Founding Editor | Big Head DC |
bigheadDC.com | rob@bigheadDC.com | AIM: bigheadrob007 Action requested? Geez. Gimme a break.
Matt Janovic said it best in a comment over at Radar:
Again, what happened between Radar and Bighead? They wanted the SMUT, but Ms. Palfrey wasn't going to confirm it to Mr. Capriccioso, so he went and submitted the story anyway. But there was a problem of confirmation: Deborah Jeane Palfrey. She's not going to confirm it because there was never a story to begin with. Her assertions are true, while those of Radar and Bighead are not. They wanted a story that was an easy fix, didn't get it, and went and ran it anyway. Now they have to do the clean-up.
