Moldea v. New York Times:
The Untold StoryBy Dan E. Moldea
Copyright © 1994, 2000, 2001 by Dan E. Moldea
"Moldea has reason to be upset. . . . After comparing what the book says with what the review says it says, one might conclude that [the reviewer] was some distance from Pulitzer territory." -- Columbia Journalism Review, May/June 1994
Contents
Joe Browne and the NFL's counterattack
The Times review and the immediate aftermath
Moldea's detailed response to the specific issues in the Times review
I was the plaintiff in a major libel litigation against the New York Times, a dispute that began in the summer of 1989 and lasted until the fall of 1994. In the end, I lost the case--but not before a three-judge panel from the second most powerful court in the United States gave me a stunning victory and then took it away in what has been widely described as one of the most bizarre and unprecedented reversals in American jurisprudence.
Meantime, throughout this legal battle, editorialists and other opinion writers from America's top newspapers, including the New York Times and especially the Washington Post, repeatedly published false and misleading information about the merits of the litigation--as well as equally false and misleading information about me, personally. Consequently, this case, not surprisingly, became widely misunderstood, and the reason was easy to understand: The media, upon which the public depends to clarify the conflicting issues in such controversies, had a vested interest in the outcome of the case, and, thus, chose to misrepresent the facts and demonize me in the process.
Remarkably, I am not as bitter as one might believe from what I have already written here--although I do concede that the case radicalized my views toward the mainstream media and, in particular, people who write opinions for a living. On a higher level, I did have the luxury of extraordinarily dedicated and talented attorneys and the loyalty and support of numerous family members, friends, and colleagues who stood behind me. All of us believed that Moldea v. New York Times was a noble cause.
In short, this was a case about the consequences of insupportable opinions--based on provably false facts, written by a writer with verifiable conflicts of interest--versus the New York Times's right to be wrong. Through my litigation, I wanted to force opinion writers to be as accountable for what they write and publish as news reporters already are. Unfortunately, the court's final decision in my case had the opposite effect, creating a two-tiered standard between those who write opinions and those who write news.
When this tumultuous litigation finally ended in October 1994, I received a wonderful letter from a widely-respected Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, who had initially opposed what I had done but, after hearing my side of the story and reviewing the case history, eventually rallied to my cause. In my reply to his thoughtful letter, I wrote:
Regarding the big defeat, I have sent letters of congratulations to the two main attorneys for the Times, Bruce Sanford and George Freeman, whom we usually liked and always respected. I also thanked them for "a great fight." Despite all the harsh words back and forth, we always knew that everything was "just business, nothing personal."
Personally, though, I feel like a guy who has been slugging down a fifth of gin every day for the past five years, and now I have to stop, cold turkey. This case has already lasted longer than World War II, and I am preparing to put it behind me. Last night, I packed up all my files and placed them in the dead file room. For your information, during the past two days, I have turned down two offers to write an article about the entire nightmare.
I lost, and I am tough enough to take it without further comment after this week.
Anyway, the bad news is: It's over. The good news is: It's over.
For over five years, I did tough it out without further public comment.
Then, in 1999, Free Press, a New York publishing house, released Bruce Sanford's book, Don't Shoot the Messenger: How Our Growing Hatred of the Media Threatens Free Speech for All of Us, which dealt, in part, with Moldea v. New York Times. In light of, what I now view as, Sanford's relentless disinformation campaign against me--as well as his repeated false and self-serving statements about this litigation to a variety of media organizations--I have decided to revisit the case and finally publish my side of the story.
Incidentally, if anyone reading this knows Bruce--whose tail I waxed when we debated at the 1994 American Booksellers Association Convention in Los Angeles--please give him a message from me: Tell him that, even though I haven't read all of his book and have no intention to do so, I couldn't help but notice that he had misspelled the names of two Washington Post reporters on the same page.
On page 235, Sanford misspelled Lloyd Grove, ":Lloyd Grave," and Joan Biskupic, "Joan Biskupie."
Admittedly, I had committed a similar minor infraction, which, for most authors, is routinely ignored and forgiven. But for my sin, Sanford felt justified in his failed--but, apparently, resurrected--attempts to destroy me and my career.
Nevertheless, since the conclusion of this case in late 1994, I have published three books, including one that received two dream-come-true reviews from the New York Times and a second that wound up on the New York Times Best-Seller List. And the third book? Sanford was the outside counsel and vetting attorney for the publishing house that released it.
Sorry, Bruce, I'm still alive.
PrologueDuring the early morning hours of June 12, 1983, my 64-year-old father and I were in the midst of what would be our last private conversation. What normally would've been a happy time for my family--the release of my second book, The Hunting of Cain, just a few days earlier--was completely overshadowed by Dad's courageous but losing, year-long battle with pancreatic cancer.
"Dad, you know where I'm going with my career as a crime reporter," I whispered to my most trusted friend, who lay helpless and dying in his bed. "Do you have any advice for me?"
Wracked with pain, Dad suddenly became very still. After a few thoughtful moments, he quietly replied, "Yeah. . . . Don't write that damn book about the NFL."
Dad, who was trying to protect his son, spoke with some authority. He had starred on Ohio State's football team after he returned home from World War II and even received a personal invitation to try out for the Los Angeles Rams from Dan Reeves, the team's legendary founder and owner.
Although Dad never played in the pros, he always remained a loyal professional football fan who also understood its power to make friends and break enemies.
In the end, even though my third book in 1986 was about the Mafia and Hollywood, I didn't take my father's advice. The subject of my fourth book in 1989 would become the Mafia and professional football.
In July 1987, I sold a proposed lengthy article to Regardie's magazine about the influence of organized crime on the NFL. My story built upon the controversial premier program of the public television series, Frontline, "An Unauthorized History of the NFL," which was broadcast on January 17, 1983.1
My article appeared as the cover story of the magazine's February 1988 issue, released the week before Super Bowl XXII.
In its review of my article, the Washington Post wrote: "Washington's Dan E. Moldea is one of a kind, and the kind in question is the tireless hunter-gatherer of evidence that some people would just as soon see left alone. There is evidence of legwork here, and of reality."
Soon after, Extra!, the house organ of the media watchdog group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), criticized the sports press for not reporting the revelations contained in my article, saying: "[T]he major media, with few exceptions, are still ignoring a very embarrassing subject. Moldea appeared on CBS Night Watch (1-29-88) and CNN Crossfire (1-30-88), but his story wasn't picked up by the nightly news or the national print media. As an NBC employee told Moldea, 'We spend $[2] billion to broadcast NFL games. We can't have you on saying it's crooked.'"
After the publication of the Regardie's article, I wrote a proposal for a book about the NFL and the mob. My agent submitted it to no fewer than a dozen publishers, but the only house to make a legitimate bid for this project was William Morrow & Company. Although Morrow's advance offer was only $50,000--$25,000 less than I had received for my previous book--I believed in the NFL project and decided to accept the deal.
Upon completion of the book, I gave my 734-page manuscript--which William Morrow entitled, Interference: How Organized Crime Influences Professional Football--to no fewer than five experts on the NFL, organized crime, and sports gambling in order to ensure the accuracy and fairness of my work.
Also, as I do for all of my books, I had either met with or telephoned numerous key characters in the text, including many of the book's targets, to fact-check and/or to receive approval for their quoted words from our previous interviews. During these follow-up conversations, I read them the entire sections in which they were discussed, giving them an opportunity to expand upon or amend the record I was in the midst of creating.2
Of course, William Morrow made sure that the manuscript was thoroughly vetted. In a memorandum from my editor, Lisa Drew, to Jim Landis, Morrow's editor-in-chief, Drew wrote, "I must say, [Moldea] has done an incredible job of research, synthesis, writing and documentation, which is a requirement, because the Mob is all over the NFL. . . . In addition, Moldea is very responsible, and has never been sued for any book or article he has written. . . . "
But editor Drew also predicted, "This is going to create enormous comment and controversy."
Why? Because Interference was the first book to concentrate on probing the relationships among professional football, the legal and illegal gambling communities, and organized crime. As a result of the documents I had uncovered and the two-hundred-plus interviews I had conducted, the book contained fresh and significant, never-before-published information.
Specifically, in Interference, I made five principal charges against the NFL, claiming that:
1. No fewer than twenty-six past and present NFL team owners have had documented personal and/or business ties with members of the gambling community and/or the organized-crime syndicate.
2. No fewer than seventy NFL games may have been fixed.
3. No fewer than fifty legitimate investigations of corruption within the NFL have been either suppressed or killed as a result of the sweetheart relationship between NFL Security, the internal police force within the league, and a variety of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.
4. The illegal gambling economy has become an adjunct to the First Amendment because of the insistence by the sports media to print and broadcast betting lines and to hire oddsmakers and handicappers to predict the outcomes of NFL games.
5. The movement to legalize sports gambling by state jurisdictions will cause a proliferation of illegal bookmaking and organized-crime activities.
Joe Browne and the NFL's counterattack
Early on, fearing yet another public-relations disaster, the NFL started reacting strongly to my work. On January 9, 1989-- nearly seven months before the release of my book--the NFL put its own spin on the facts. The New York Post published an article in its "Page Six" column, reporting: "An NFL spokesman [communications director Joe Browne] said a magazine article Moldea wrote on the same subject 'was a cut-and-paste job and not very factual. It was filled with inaccuracies, gossip and innuendo.' He said league commissioner Pete Rozelle didn't intend to talk to Moldea."
Then, on June 4, less than two months before the publication of the Interference, Peter King, then a sportswriter for Newsday, once again repeated the NFL's mantra: "NFL director of communications Joe Browne, who denied Moldea an interview with commissioner Pete Rozelle about the charges leveled, said the book was old news. 'The book is an outgrowth of a magazine piece and a tabloid TV show [PBS's Frontline], both of which contained a series of long-repudiated rumors, distortions, half-truths and outright factual errors,' Browne said."
The Sporting News, in a July 3 story, titled "NFL Worried," repeated some of the same material in the Newsday story, as well as Joe Browne's quote.
Clearly, the NFL's strategy in its pre-publication assault on my work consisted of portraying it as sloppy, dishonest, and old news.
Actually, I had anticipated these responses from the NFL and their cheerleaders in the sports media and wrote in the Prologue to Interference:
"Consequently, the NFL is sure to attempt to discredit this book, which strikes at the heart of the business of professional football, in any way it can--just as it did with an article I wrote about this subject after the 1987 regular season. An unnamed league spokesman [Joe Browne] said that the story 'was a cut-and-paste job and not very factual. It was filled with inaccuracies, gossip and innuendo.' But that response was a complete turnabout.
"In fact, I read my article to the current NFL Security director, Warren Welsh, prior to publication to solicit whatever changes he felt were required. And, because of Welsh's expertise and inside information, I trusted him and made several necessary modifications upon his advice. In the end, he told me that it was a 'fair and accurate' report. However, the NFL, for reasons only its unnamed spokesman can explain, changed its tune after the story was made public . . .
"Predictably, with the publication of this book, the league's now-familiar tactic will be to remain aloof from the charges, deny them from afar, and then send its front line of defense, the loyal sportswriters, to attack the messenger." (Emphasis added.)
In effect, I agreed with Neil Amdur, the editor of the New York Times's sports section, who wrote in his 1971 book, The Fifth Down: Democracy and the Football Revolution: "Football writers and members of the media are among the most intense rooters for the teams they are assigned to follow as a 'beat.'"
Interference was released in late July. On July 30, Jim Baker of the Boston Herald wrote an article, "Moldea's claims big headache for NFL." Baker stated: "[I]t will be most interesting to see how . . . yes, those NFL writers and broadcasters who've been riding the NFL gravy train for years, will treat this [book]. Those media members with strong connections to the owners will make especially compelling observation."
After the book's release, William Morrow sent me on a thirteen-city, seventy-interview book tour, which included such high-profile programs as: Nightline, Good Morning America, the Larry King Show, and the Pat Sajack Show. I debated anyone who wanted to challenge my findings or documentation, including the top bookmakers and oddsmakers in Las Vegas during my two-hour appearance on the Stardust Line, the premier sports gambling program in the country. Throughout these sparring and even free-swinging sessions during my tour, no one ever laid a glove on me or my work. Yet, incredibly, not one reporter--from news or sports--ever asked to see my evidence of NFL game-fixing, even though I traveled around the country always prepared to provide it. (For an example of one these investigations, see my September 25, 1999, article, "Game-Fixing in the NFL: An Untold Story," which appears in the News & Opinions' archives at my web site.)
By the end of August, my book was going into its third printing and selling well. My publisher was solidly behind the book and expected it to appear on the national best-seller lists. But, while I was on the road, the NFL's attack intensified.
On July 23, the New York Post's "Page Six" column had published a second piece, "Writer tackles Mob-NFL ties," announcing the release of Interference. The Post essentially repeated it first story, saying: "Gridiron powers that be aren't overly concerned with the book's blitz. League spokesman Joe Brown [sic] called the book 'a padded magazine piece.' Although he wouldn't respond to specific allegations, Brown [sic] contended 'the book is based on a TV show and a 1988 magazine story, both of which contained a listing of long repudiated rumors, distortions, half-truths and, frankly, outright factual errors."
Then, the NFL owners jumped into the fray.
On July 30, the Akron Beacon Journal published a front-page news story about the book, which was picked up by numerous papers on the Knight-Ridder wire service. Interviewed about the charges in Interference, Cleveland Browns owner Art Modell, who admitted that he hadn't even seen the book, angrily reacted: "The man [Moldea] is a muckraker, the man is sick. . . . We're a popular game and he's trying to take advantage of that by looking for a fast buck. I wouldn't even look at the book, let alone buy it. Outrageous. It's all outrageous."
Soon after, Football News, an official organ of the NFL, published a column by Gar Yarbro, headlined, "Moldea's book based on rumors, half-truths." Yarbro wrote: "[B]ook reviewers will list Dan E. Moldea's new sports book . . . as non-fiction. But there are so many rumors, half-truths and unsubstantiated stories that, in my mind, it would be best classified as fiction. . . . The truth is, I have 1,000 times more confidence in the NFL than I do in any book publisher who would print this trash."
But the worst was yet to come.
The Times review and the immediate aftermath
On September 3, 1989, the week before the NFL season began, Gerald Eskenazi, a New York Times sportswriter who had covered the National Football League "beat" for three decades, reviewed my book for the New York Times Book Review.3 In this review, Eskenazi grossly misrepresented specific facts contained in my work, concluding that my book contained "sloppy journalism," a charge that, if true, could end a non-fiction author's career.
But Eskenazi had based his opinion on a series of provably false statements. Incredibly, he claimed that I stated facts I never did; or that I omitted other facts that were clearly contained in my book.
Some media critics later blunted Eskenazi's review. Writing for the Columbia Journalism Review, columnist Christopher Hanson stated: "Moldea has reason to be upset. . . . [A]fter comparing what the book says with what the review says it says, one might conclude that Eskenazi was some distance from Pulitzer territory."
Journalist Edwin Diamond observed in New York magazine: "[Eskenazi charges that]: '[Moldea] revives the discredited notion that Carroll Rosenbloom . . . met foul play when he drowned in Florida 10 years ago.' In fact, Moldea interviewed witnesses who were at the scene, obtained the autopsy photos, and concluded on page 360 of Interference: 'Rosenbloom died in a tragic accident and was not murdered.'" (Emphasis added)
Who is Gerald Eskenazi? In 1989, at the time of the review, he was specifically assigned as the Times's beat reporter who covered the New York Jets. And, in 1976, Eskenazi had written a celebration of professional football, There Were Giants In Those Days (Grosset & Dunlap), a book about the New York Giants for which he received the cooperation of both the NFL and the Giants's top management. On the acknowledgment page of his book, Eskenazi wrote: "Most of the Giants and the Giants officials, past and present, written about gave me their time and enthusiasm. All the reminiscences were given directly. . . . Also, the necessary technical help was provided by Jim Rooney of the NFL, whose Don Weiss and Joe Browne also served." (Emphasis added)
The similarities in tone and substance between Joe Browne's pre-publication attacks on Interference and Eskenazi's post-publication review were striking. Both men had portrayed my work as sloppy, dishonest, and old news.
According to his personal calendar, which my attorneys and I later obtained, Eskenazi was scheduled to talk to Browne on the first day of my book tour, July 26, 1989. Soon after, Eskenazi received the assignment from the New York Times Book Review to review my work. Browne's name is handwritten in a margin of Eskenazi's personal notes about Interference. Eskenazi had listed and numbered several criticisms of my book in another margin, apart from the rest of his notes, and he used most of them in his review. Did these criticisms come from Eskenazi or did they come from Browne?
Regardless, Eskenazi seemed less concerned with fairness and more determined to protect his long-time friends and sources in the National Football League with his review of Interference.
On September 4, 1989, the day after the review appeared in the Times, I sent a letter, challenging the review, point-by- point, to Lisa Drew, my editor at William Morrow.
On September 5, Drew replied: "While we are sympathetic with your distress about both the tone and the many statements and implications of inaccuracy in the review, this, unfortunately, is not a unique or even rare situation; it is the risk one takes when sending a book out for review. . . . However, we--and for that matter no other publisher I know of--do not respond to these unfortunate attacks as a matter of policy."
But, with my career at stake, I felt compelled to respond--even though I realized that I would have to do so without the public support of my publisher.
On September 6, I contacted Washington attorney Tom Green, who advised me to send a letter to Eskenazi, pointing out his mistakes and demanding a retraction. He also instructed me to send a copy of this letter to Rebecca Sinkler, then the new editor of the New York Times Book Review.
I sent the letter to Eskenazi and a copy to Sinkler on September 7, stating, in part: "My attorneys and I believe that your September 3 review of my book . . . was deceptive, misleading, reckless, and malicious and has placed my book and me in a false light. Thus, you have libeled me.
"Your conclusions are based upon 'facts' cited in the review that have no basis in truth. Of the six major charges you leveled against me, only one is true: that I misspelled three of the 1,500 names in the book--two of which are mentioned once in the text and the third only twice. [Actually, I had received the spelling of all three names from other published sources, including the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. I misspelled them just as they had.4]
"The other five more serious charges are totally groundless and clear indications of recklessness and malice."
I then listed each of the five charges and my responses to them, concluding the letter: "I ask for a full and prompt retraction of your September 3 review in the New York Times Book Review. If this request is not satisfied, I shall take legal steps to remedy this situation, which has already caused tremendous illegal and unfair damage to my reputation and economic harm to my book."After Eskenazi did not respond by my September 11 deadline, Green called the office of the Times's general counsel on September 13, demanding that the Times either retract or correct the review.
David Thurm, an attorney for the Times, responded on behalf of the newspaper in a September 22 letter. Thurm attempted to defend Eskenazi's review, taking my complaints and addressing each. In doing so, Thurm actually misquoted the specific wording of my book, twisting what I wrote and didn't write.
Thurm then concluded: "The main thrust of your client's concern seems to be the characterization of the book as 'sloppy journalism'. From a legal viewpoint, this is clearly protected as opinion. The words are those of opinion and as such are not capable of being objectively characterized as true or false."
In fact, in my letter to Eskenazi, I did not complain about or even mentioned the term "sloppy journalism." I had simply questioned Eskenazi's use of false and misleading facts in his review. In effect, Thurm took it upon himself to redefine my complaint in his response.
Personally, I believe that Thurm's letter was the turning point in this entire dispute. The Times had copped its position based on its attorney's response and became immovable, assuming that I would never file suit. And when I eventually did, the Times had no choice but to stay the course--hoping to outmaneuver me in court.
Thus, the Times had reduced this entire matter to nothing more than a game of chicken.
As for me, I really never believed that Thurm and the Times would ultimately stand by Eskenazi's error-ridden review; so I engaged the fight. In effect, we became like two teenagers in fast cars, drag racing towards the edge of a cliff. Who would jump out first?
Interestingly, I had had a previous bout with Thurm in 1987 after the Times's right-wing public television critic, John Corry, made false statements in his April 5 column about my appearance on a public television program about my book on Ronald Reagan. My attorney then, John Sikorski of Springfield, Massachusetts, forced Thurm and the Times to run a correction that appeared ten days later.
I had made the Times back down then, and I was cocky enough to believe that I could do it again.
When my 1989 attorney, Tom Green, expressed his belief in late September that we could not survive the legal threshold for "protected opinion" to get my case into court, I turned to another attorney and respected acquaintance, Alexander Greenfeld, a former New York Times in-house counsel, who was then a professor of journalism at the University of Maryland. After his lengthy examination of the facts of my case, Greenfeld expressed his legal opinion that I had been clearly libeled by Eskenazi, based on the errors of fact in the review. Also, he brushed off Thurm's response as simply "boilerplate."
However, Greenfeld warned against litigation, advocating a "journalistic solution." And I certainly agreed. But even Greenfeld, with all of his connections in New York, could not obtain such a solution. By mid-November, he advised me to send a letter to the editor of the New York Times Book Review.
Submitting a letter for publication was the last thing I wanted to do. I had wanted the Times to correct its own mistakes publicly--which, clearly, it was not going to do. I knew that my letter would be perceived as nothing more than just another response from just another author, crying "foul."
Finally, on November 15--after all efforts to obtain either a retraction, corrections, or a "journalistic solution" for the review of Interference failed--I wrote and Federal Expressed a letter for publication to Rebecca Sinkler.5 To my surprise, she did not publish my letter and never responded to me.
Even though I was now thinking lawsuit, I still tried to get my side of the story out through another publication in a last-ditch effort to avoid litigation. But no one would take on theTimes, and give me the opportunity to air my side of this matter. One prospective writer flat-out told me, "Dan, I write books, too. Don't expect me to screw myself up with the New York Times Book Review."
Very quickly. this whole matter took on a life of its own. The review was no longer perceived as the biased opinion of one sportswriter with conflicts of interest. Few people could even remember Eskenazi's name. Instead, the perception by many was that I had been exposed and then annihilated by the New York Times, the world's most influential newspaper.
Within weeks after the publication of the review--while the 1989 NFL season was in full-swing--more than 12,000 copies of Interference were returned to the publisher, which immediately ran for cover, cutting short their advertising budget for my book and leaving me without any forum to respond to the Times.
In addition, reviews and articles in other newspapers virtually ceased. Invitations to appear on radio and television programs came to a halt. No fewer than three television shows--which were planning to feature my book--canceled their segments with me. One known author was even prevented by his publisher from footnoting passages from my book in his own work as a direct result of the New York Times review.
Also, since 1983, I had depended on lecturing at colleges and universities to supplement my income. But. after the publication of the Times review, the volume of bookings for my lecture, "The Mafia in America," went into a tailspin.
During the year following the review, I earned only $300 for work published under my own name. Several prospective publishers of my books, as well as my magazine and newspaper articles, made an issue of the Times review, which had suddenly influenced their opinions of my abilities--despite my long record as a responsible journalist.
In fact, no lawsuits were either threatened or filed against Interference; no source quoted in the book ever denied the accuracy of his or her quote.
Consequently, a lawsuit became my only means of self-defense. I simply refused to allow Eskenazi and the NFL to get away with what they had done to harm my career without a fight. I believed, then and now, that what Eskenazi and the New York Times had done to Interference was tantamount to an act of censorship, and the National Football League was the beneficiary of that act.
On August 23, 1990--just eleven days before the statute of limitations would expire, and after a final, failed attempt to persuade the Times to come to terms--my new attorneys--Roger C. Simmons of Gordon & Simmons in Frederick, Maryland, and Stephen M. Trattner of Lewis & Trattner in Washington--filed a libel suit on my behalf against the New York Times in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C. Simmons and Trattner saw the crux of the case as those issues revolving around Eskenazi's use of the term "sloppy journalism."
Our case piggybacked the June 1990 U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision in an Ohio case, Milkovich v. Lorain County Journal, which stated, in part, that published opinions may be libelous if they are based on provably false facts.
But, if anything, the filing of our suit caused more trouble. Opinion writers lambasted me for going to court; thus making me more of a pariah to my colleagues in the media-- despite my years of service as a strong advocate for writers' rights, especially during my tenure as the president of Washington Independent Writers, a founding member of the National Writers Union, and a leader of the 1981 American Writers Congress in New York.
Now casting me in the role as a villain, the Washington Post, in an August 26, 1990, editorial, stated: "[F]or Mr. Moldea to show that this sort of thing is provably false fact, rather than opinion, would require a large and unwarranted step past anything established in the Supreme Court's handling of the Ohio case."
Desperate for some recognition of the merits of my case, I attempted to solicit independent studies of Moldea v. New York Times by a variety of writers' organizations. Such proposals were sent to the Authors Guild, Investigative Reporters & Editors, and even the National Book Critics Circle (NBCC), among others. All of them refused to take sides, which, in an odd way, I accepted as somewhat of a victory. If I had been clearly wrong, none of these groups would have even hesitated to support the New York Times.
NBCC president Jack Miles later wrote in the Los Angeles Times Book Review: "After much consideration, the [NBCC] board decided to take no position on the matter. Thinking as reviewers faced with the prospect of future litigation if their work struck an author as defamatory, some on the board tacitly sided with the New York Times. . . . Others on the board, perhaps thinking of their vulnerability as authors to essentially unaccountable reviewers, tacitly sided with Moldea, who claims: 'If I win this case, the worst that can happen is that reviewers and other opinion-writers will suddenly have a responsibility to be accountable for what they write. Any writer who cannot live with that should not be in this profession.'"
In September 1990, before I had started to approach the other writers' organizations, the board of directors of Washington Independent Writers, where I had been president in 1981-82, voted to support my position after its own investigation of the case. According to an article in its newsletter, the Independent Writer: "The resolution acknowledged the book reviewer's 'undeniable First Amendment right to free expression of his or her opinion regarding any book under review,' however it also asserted the 'moral and ethical obligation of the publisher to retract any libelous portions of the review or to provide the author in question with the opportunity for a rebuttal.'"
Already, this entire matter had become a classic Catch-22 situation. This is the way I viewed it: If I had ignored the review and did nothing, I would be dead. If I sued and lost, I would be dead with a stake rammed through my heart. But even if I sued, proved the merits of my case, and won, I would still be dead--because I would be seen as limiting the First Amendment.
I began to stay up nights, just trying to figure out how I could come out of this nightmare alive.
The Times immediately responded to our suit, filing a motion for summary judgment in November 1990 and proclaiming that my whole litigation jeopardized the "robust exchange of views in the marketplace of ideas." But, certainly, the Times's refusal to publish my letter to the editor--which would have completely averted this litigation--denied me the opportunity to participate in this exchange of views.6
Still, we believed that this case would end in one dramatic moment--when my lead attorney, Roger Simmons, a fierce trial lawyer, deposed Gerald Eskenazi under oath. And we were nearly giddy on December 19, 1990, the day before his scheduled deposition, believing that Simmons's penetrating questions and Eskenazi's honest replies would force the New York Times into a complete and unconditional surrender.
However, just before the close of business that same day, the trial judge in our case, John Garrett Penn, blocked Eskenazi's deposition and stayed all discovery in the case until he made a decision on the Times's motion for summary judgment. In the end, Simmons would never get the opportunity to question Eskenazi about the review, as well as his sweetheart relationships with the NFL and Joe Browne.
Oral arguments over the Times's motion were heard in federal court on February 19, 1991.
On January 15, 1992, after Penn still hadn't ruled on the Times's motion, we decided to jump start court action by filing a controversial motion to renew discovery.7 Specifically, in spite of the continued stay, we asked for permission to depose Arthur Sulzberger, Sr., the legendary chairman of the board of the New York Times. In Simmons's motion, he stated, "Sulzberger's . . . relationship with NFL owners and his influence on the NYT's book review are central issues in this case."
In the Times's response on January 27, defense attorney Bruce Sanford insisted that Sulzberger "does not have any 'relationships with NFL owners . . . ' There neither is, nor could be, any legitimate reason for seeking discovery from Sulzberger, and the Times would vehemently resist such a transparent attempt to harass the head of the family that controls the Times."
However, we weren't just blowing smoke. During our investigation of the Times, we had obtained documentation of an alleged business relationship between Sulzberger and Edward J. DeBartolo, Sr., the owner of the San Francisco Forty-Niners, who had been identified by the U.S. Department of Justice--among other federal, state, and local law-enforcement agencies--as an organized-crime figure.8
On January 31--just four days after the Times's response to our motion, which, in part, requested Sulzberger's deposition--Judge Penn finally sprang into action, ruling in favor of the Times and dismissing our case.
Penn embraced a narrow interpretation of Milkovich, viewing the term "sloppy journalism" as protected opinion while virtually ignoring all of the provably false facts cited as supporting evidence for that term in Eskenazi's review.
Agitated over the decision, my attorneys filed our brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on May 19, 1993. Consistent with their earlier motions and briefs, the Times's attorneys concentrated their reply to our petition on the premise that the term "sloppy journalism" is a statement of opinion, building on Judge Penn's lower court ruling.
At this point, I had my first and only argument with my lead counsel, Roger Simmons. Nearly every article written about our case against the Times had highlighted and even tried to limit the dispute to the use of the term "sloppy journalism," in lieu of the actual provably false facts contained in the review--i.e., what I did and did not say about Los Angeles Rams owner Carroll Rosenbloom's death. I came to believe that as long as the "sloppy journalism" count remained in our complaint, the media would continue to portray me unjustly as a thin-skinned author with "a wounded ego," and that the entire basis for our case would continue to be misunderstood, as well as misrepresented in the press and by the courts.
I asked Simmons to consider conceding the Times's point that the term "sloppy journalism" was, in fact, a statement of non-defamatory opinion, which would force the Times, the media, and the courts to start dealing with the specific errors in the review.
Although very concerned with the serious thrashing I was taking in the press, Simmons refused, arguing that Eskenazi's use of the term "sloppy journalism" had been based on the specific provably false facts contained in the review. Thus, Simmons reasoned, if Eskenazi's errors were defamatory, then the broad conclusion which summed them up--specifically, the term "sloppy journalism"--was defamatory, as well.
In the end, Simmons won our argument, persuading me that we had to continue to fight the battle over the term "sloppy journalism," regardless of how much grief I was taking for it.
On September 14, 1993, Simmons stressed our now united point of view about the term "sloppy journalism" during the hard-fought oral arguments with the Times's attorneys before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.
Then, on February 18, 1994, after months of study and debate, the federal appellate court, agreeing with Simmons's arguments, overturned Judge Penn's lower court ruling. Two of the most prominent First Amendment judges in the United States, Harry Edwards and Patricia Wald, voted in the majority; Abner Mikva, another respected First Amendment protectionist, dissented.
In his very strongly-worded opinion, Judge Edwards stated: "We find . . . that the review clearly is capable of a meaning that would tend to injure Moldea in his chosen profession, investigative journalism--indeed, Moldea alleges that the review did precisely that, and with devastating effect. The allegation that a journalist and author is 'sloppy,' or that his book's portrayals of central events are incorrect or misleading undoubtedly satisfies the first element Moldea must prove to state a claim for defamation. . . .
"We certainly do not mean to suggest that all bad reviews are actionable. We do hold, however, that assertions that would otherwise be actionable in defamation are not transmogrified into nonactionable statements when they appear in the context of a book review."
Edwards went on to rule that four of the five statements of fact contained in the review--including Eskenazi's claim that my book "revives the discredited notion that Carroll Rosenbloom . . . met foul play"--could be meaningfully determined by a jury to be true or false.
However, Judge Edwards also insisted: "[I]f the Times review had said nothing more than 'Moldea's work is sloppy journalism,' this statement would be actionable because it is capable of defamatory meaning, and it reasonably can be understood to rest on provable, albeit unstated, defamatory facts."
Although grateful for the decision, I shuddered when I first read it, because it appeared that Judge Edwards had taken the controversy over the term "sloppy journalism" to an extreme. From the outset, I knew that this ruling would invite the wrath of the media gods and possibly the justices of the United States Supreme Court. I expected them to descend upon all of us, including the two brave judges who had supported me.
When reporters called for comment in the wake of the appellate decision, I told several of them, "We are about to see a demonstration of raw power in America coming at us like a rifle shot."
All I had ever wanted was my day in court; and, suddenly, I was at the hub of a crisis over the First Amendment. In fact, after the appellate court's decision, my attorney proposed a settlement to the Times, which included an offer of a joint stipulation that the judges' ruling be mooted.
Predictably, the media--which knew nothing of our settlement offer, which the Times rejected--seized upon all of this, causing an onslaught of cataclysmic editorials and op-ed columns. Columnist James J. Kilpatrick railed against Judge Edwards's decision but admitted that he was thinking twice about "what I myself write about fat-headed federal judges."
D.T. Max of the New York Observer, wrote: "[B]ook review sections at newspapers and magazines around the country were frightened of what the Moldea case might mean in terms of their ability to conduct free and open inquiry in their pages, and a general call had gone out to newspaper editorial writers to alert the court that they would open a Pandora's box if their February opinion were allowed to stand."
The response to this "general call" was as misleading as it was overwhelming. For instance, the Boston Globe, which is owned by the New York Times, published an editorial on April 18, stating: "If author Dan E. Moldea wins his libel suit against the New York Times Book Review, he loses, and so does every writer and editor in the country." (This Globe editorial had actually contained a fabricated quote, supposedly from me, which the newspaper later retracted.)
Washington Post ombudsman Joann Byrd, who was equally clueless about this case, lamented on February 27: "People worry about the chilling effect of laws declaring that opinion pieces are not immune to libel suits. And we should. We are much less likely to get an honest appraisal, or a spirited and valuable discussion, if the writer is looking over his shoulder for advancing attorneys."
And columnist Lucy Dalglish in the May issue of Quill, the voice of the Society of Professional Journalists, warned: "The decision could destroy an American art form--the review."
But beyond such idiotic statements, as well as all of the scare tactics and blind loyalty to the Times, the U.S. Court of Appeals had stated that, essentially, opinion writers and reviewers should be held to the same standard of accuracy and honesty as news reporters--no doubt, a revolutionary concept for today's media.
In support of the ruling, the Legal Times published an article on March 14 that clarified the decision by stating, "[T]he Moldea ruling will most likely prompt book reviewers to do more factual homework, a habit the First Amendment cherishes. And to the extent the decision chills reviews that maliciously and factually mislead the reader--the proof required for damage recovery when the book author is a public figure--it chills what ought to be chilled."
On March 21, the Times's attorneys petitioned the entire eleven-judge court of appeals, en banc, for a rehearing of the case, arguing that the 2-1 decision "undermines two centuries of jurisprudence protecting literary criticism."
The Association of American Publishers and the PEN American Center filed a condescending but badly misinformed amicus brief on behalf of the Times about the "sloppy journalism" controversy--in which they sloppily mistitled my book, "Interference: How Organized Crime Influences Basic Sports Knowledge." (Emphasis added)
However, a second amicus for the Times didn't give us any laughs at all. Prepared by the eminent Washington attorney Kenneth Starr, an ex-judge with the same D.C. circuit court of appeals and the former Solicitor General of the United States under President George Bush, this amicus dripped with the power and prestige of its author. In his brief, Starr represented the Newspaper Association of America, Dow Jones & Company, the Associated Press, Scripps Howard, the Copley Press, the Christian Science Monitor, Time Inc., U.S. News & World Report, the New Yorker, Magazine Publishers of America, the Society of Professional Journalists, among many others--about 600 media organizations in all.
From the moment of its filing on March 21, my attorneys and I referred to Starr's work with awe and respect and simply called it, "The World Amicus".
Even though we had won a major victory with the appellate court's February decision, my attorneys and I still remained chronically on the defensive. We threw no parties; we never broke out the champagne.
On March 22, while trying to alleviate some of the tension after the filing of The World Amicus, I sent Roger Simmons a greeting card, thanking him for the great fight he was giving me. The card simply read: "Looks like it's you and me against the World. . . . And I think we're going to get creamed!"
However, with the merits of our case now established, news reporters, like a godsend, began to enter the fray. Suddenly, anonymous editorial writers and paranoid op-ed columnists weren't the only journalists writing about Moldea v. New York Times. For the first time since the publication of the review, news reporters called and started asking for our side of the story.
This new phenomenon in the case--reporting our point of view--resulted in some excellent articles in the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, New York, the Columbia Journalism Review, Editor & Publisher, and The Nation, among other publications. Without exception, whenever we received calls from news reporters who asked for details and documentation--even from those whose publications had signed onto The World Amicus--we also received fairness and balance in their published articles.
And, by the end of April, because of the prominence of the news reporting about the case, we felt that we were actually turning a corner in the public-relations battle against the New York Times, which was finally receiving some scrutiny and criticism for its actions at the time of the review's publication and in its immediate aftermath.
However, after the news reporters published their one-shot articles about the case and then moved on to other stories, their colleagues on the editorial pages continued attacking us unmercifully, giving no indication that they were even bothering to read what their news reporters had written about the case.
For instance, since the filing of our suit, the Washington Post had published three editorials about our case--all of which flogged me for essentially having the audacity to defend myself. When Roger Simmons tried to defend me with his own "Taking Exception" op-ed column in response to yet another one of the Post's uninformed editorials, the Post refused to publish our defense--until we complained directly to its executive editor. Finally, a month after the publication of its most recent editorial, the Post published Simmons's reply.
(For a more in-depth look at the Washington Post's role during Moldea v. New York Times, please see my article, "The FBI and NFL Security.")
Meantime, as if we didn't already have enough problems, another prominent attorney, Martin Garbus of New York, injected himself into the battle on behalf of the Times, writing and then recycling the same op-ed piece in a variety of publications--without ever attempting to contact my attorneys or me.9
Every time Garbus published one of these clones, the publication always featured it prominently and reverently, usually accompanied by a photograph of Garbus deep in thought, along with a credit line that made him to appear to be The God of the First Amendment. Although the Legal Times ran a counterpoint article in tandem with Garbus's story, Daily Variety and Publishers Weekly never allowed us to respond to him; Newsday did publish--but buried--a heavily-edited letter to the editor from Simmons.
Meantime, while preparing for a possible en banc hearing before the full Court of Appeals, my attorneys and I continued to talk regularly, to collect our evidence, to prepare strategy, and to evaluate potential upcoming scenarios.
Then, on May 3, the one scenario we had not even considered hit us like a runaway freight train: Judges Edwards and Wald--in the midst of the firestorm of editorial and op-ed criticism and without any new evidence, legal precedents, or oral arguments--suddenly and inexplicably reversed themselves in a new opinion Edwards now called "Moldea II". In a preface to this new decision, Edwards apologized for his earlier "mistake of judgment."
Of course, as the beneficiaries of this incredible and unprecedented 180-degree turnabout, The World Amicus crowd did not protest--and did little or no reporting about--the extraordinary circumstances of the court's reversal. My attorneys and I wondered out loud whether they would have been as complacent if Exxon or Philip Morris had been the recipient of this mysterious judicial gift--and not the New York Times.
However, in spite of the media's celebration and the flood of self-congratulatory editorials in the wake of Moldea II, the widely-held belief that Moldea I had been mooted was misleading. Edwards wrote in Moldea II that the "fundamental framework" for libel actions in Moldea I is "sound, and we do not modify it in this decision."
Remarkably though, in Moldea II, Edwards claimed that in Moldea I he had "failed to take sufficient account of the fact that the statements at issue appeared in the context of a book review, a genre in which readers expect to find spirited critiques of literary works." Considering the number of months the judges had already spent on the case prior to Moldea I--which stated the exact opposite--we found the judge's explanation to be disingenuous and even absurd.
Yet, regardless of Edwards's continued support for the "framework" for Moldea I, he made several other statements in Moldea II that clearly conflicted with his first opinion.
For instance, Judge Edwards, who talked tough in Moldea I about an author's right to fairness and a reviewer's responsibility to get his facts straight, now wrote in Moldea II: "Indeed, some bad reviews may be written with an aim to damage a writer's reputation. There is nothing that we can do about this, at least without unacceptably interfering with free speech."
In effect, my attorneys and I believed that Edwards and the appellate court had created a separate tier within journalism, an exemption from libel for opinion writers when they engage in "mischievous intent," as the court now called it in Moldea II. News reporters and non-fiction authors had no such exemption and continued to be held to a "malice" standard.
Why did the appellate judges reverse themselves?
Of course, I didn't even try to conceal what I believed. In my prepared statement to the New York Times, I declared: "These judges spent over six months reviewing the case history as well as my book. On that basis, they ruled in our favor. Since then, the only new contribution has been the avalanche of misleading articles and editorials overreacting to this decision. I think it's legitimate to question what impact all of that had on this very bizarre reversal."
And I was not alone in this belief.
The day after the Moldea II bloodbath, the Wall Street Journal stated, "Even some detractors of the original opinion agreed with Mr. Moldea's assessment. 'This extraordinary reversal suggests the power of big media when they gang up on a single writer,' said Carlin Romano, the [newly-elected] president of the National Book Critics Circle and literary critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer."
In addition, Romano told the Washington Post, "None of the big media outfits seem to take seriously that it may be Moldea who's on the right side of freedom of expression here. His argument--that he and authors like him have little chance to respond to book reviews in major publications--is well taken."
The Post also quoted College of William and Mary law professor Rodney Smolla, a respected expert on the First Amendment, who said of the reversal, "'This is impossible to understand. The first time around Chief Judge Abner Mikva had strongly dissented, which means 'they argued this out, thought this out, thrashed it out.
. . . It's inexplicable.'"In a second story published by the Post on May 5, reporter Joan Biskupic, in an extraordinary feat, managed to get the original lone dissenting judge in Moldea I on the record: "Judge Abner J. Mikva, who dissented in the original case, was vindicated this week. But he took no credit yesterday.
"'I certainly did not lobby [the other two judges] on the issue,' he said. 'I didn't send them copies of the editorials or anything. They could read those on their own.'
"So did the original majority give in to outside pressure, as Moldea and others suggested Tuesday?
"'These are very strong-minded judges,' Mikva said. 'They don't cave to pressure. Even good pressure.'
" . . . Others were not as generous. A libel lawyer who spoke on the condition of anonymity attributed the reversal to the 'firestorm of public criticism that the earlier decision received.'"
Biskupic also quoted Kenneth Starr--author of The World Amicus, whom Roger Simmons debated about the case that weekend on Court-TV--as saying, "'It was and is the talk' of the law firms." (See: "Kenneth Starr on Moldea v. New York Times.")
Five years later, Mikva, now retired from the bench, was extremely candid about the issue of media pressure and its impact on his two colleagues during Moldea v. New York Times. In a June 14, 1999, article for the Legal Times, Mikva wrote: "I wish I could claim that my eloquence, either in my dissent or otherwise, persuaded my colleagues to change their minds. It was more likely the drumbeat of criticism begun in the editorials of the Washington Post and the New York Times about the 'serious threat' to the First Amendment posed by the original decision. While my dissent was quoted widely in those editorials, the panel ignored it when the second Moldea opinion held that book reviews are entitled to special protection."
Routinely, my attorneys and I warned media people, who were blindly lining up behind the Times without even examining the merits of our case, to be very careful what they were asking for, because they just might get it if I lost this case. To be sure, what they received was an appellate decision that did nothing less than declare an open season for unchecked criticism on authors and their published works.
In an ornery May 7 editorial--even with the dark cloud hovering over the circumstances of the court's decision--the New York Times praised Judge Edwards for his reversal and self-righteously concluded that the appellate court's second opinion safeguarded "spirited argument," adding, "The whole society, freer to speak and argue about matters of public concern, is the winner."
But, once again, the Times's refusal to publish my letter to the editor in response to this high-handed editorial--as well as my earlier response to the review of Interference--denied me the opportunity to participate in this "spirited argument."
In other words, the New York Times talked the talk but refused to walk the walk.
On August 1, my attorneys filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Upon filing, Editor & Publisher quoted me, saying, "Whether we win or lose, my attorneys have given me a great fight for a worthwhile cause-- trying to make opinion writers accountable for what they publish, just like news reporters. Given the same set of unfortunate circumstances, I would do it all over again. I have no regrets."
On October 3, in another reportedly unprecedented moment in judicial history that brought Moldea v. New York Times to an anticlimactic conclusion, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review any of the nearly 1,700 newly-petitioned cases pending before it, including Moldea II; thus denying me the opportunity to present my case in court.
The following day, the New York Times described it as "the day the Supreme Court of the United States said 'no.'"10
Despite the fact that my pending victory in Moldea v. New York Times was snatched away from me under the most suspicious of circumstances, I will always look back over those years of battling for my life and have no regrets about writing what my father had once called "that damn book about the NFL." What he anticipated that I did not was that by taking on this American institution, its friends and allies would be running "interference" against me. And one of them would be an NFL beat reporter for the New York Times, which would then defend his sloppy work and conflicts of interest.
In the end, my crusade against the owners of professional football and the influence upon them by organized crime was cut short. Instead, I was forced into a personal battle against the world's most respected and influential newspaper, which, in light of its mistakes and refusal to be fair to an individual author, stubbornly hid behind and then jeopardized the framework of the First Amendment.
Yet, even with all of the horrible traumas experienced by both sides during the long and tragic history of Moldea v. New York Times, I still wouldn't have missed this fight for the world.
My dad would have been proud.
1. Two close friends of mine had been principals in the Frontline production. Believing that their work had not received the respect it deserved, they offered me their research as the impetus for my own investigation and, perhaps, my next book. After a few months of work in 1983, I wrote a book proposal and submitted it through my agent to four publishing houses. All of them were interested in the project, but none of them really offered a legitimate advance. The problem was simple, and they admitted it outright: They didn't want to take on the NFL.
2. The following people read and approved all portions of the manuscript referring to them: Carl Capozzola, Don Dawson, Tom Mechling, Michael Roxborough, and Scott Schettler.
Further, there were numerous key characters in the book whom I telephoned to fact-check and/or to receive approval for their quotes. During many of these conversations, I read the sources the entire sections in which they were mentioned. Among them were: Lance Alworth, Ellen Berlow, Bob Blakey, Irving Cowan, Ed Curd, Len Dawson, Weeb Ewbank, Bennie Fuqua, Ron Goldstock, John Hadl, Leo Halper, Merle Hapes, Pat Healy, William Henrickson, Jim Hudson, Bernie Hughes, Sonny Jurgensen, Marty Kane, Gene Klein, Aaron Kohn, Dick "Night Train" Lane, William Lynch, Robert Maheu, Bobby Martin, Bill Matney, John McCrary, Kurt Muellenberg, Bill Munson, Joe Nellis, Gene Nolan, John Olszewski, Leroy Orozco, Vince Promuto, Ben Rosenbloom, Marvin Rudnick, Morris Mac Schwebel, Jake Scott, Mike Strachan, Hank Stram, George Taliaferro, Emmitt Thomas, Johnny Unitas, Gene Upshaw, Warren Welsh, and Paul Ybarrondo, among many others.
3. The following is the exact text of Eskenazi's September 3, 1989, review of Interference, "Unsportsmanlike Conduct?", in the New York Times Book Review. (The seven highlighted links added to the review contain my detailed responses to each of Eskenazi's seven charges of factual errors.)
First, I've got to admit a tangled financial connection to the National Football League. My wife's first cousin married a psychiatrist whose father sold his plumbing business to a company that eventually became Warner Communications. And the owners of several football teams have a piece of Warner.In the credit line for Eskenazi, the New York Times Book Review identified him as follows:Is that clear?
Now you understand the kind of crazy-quilt tie-ins Dan E. Moldea makes in Interference to explain how organized crime and the N.F.L. are cozy.
Of course, Mr. Moldea, whose previous books include Dark Victory: Ronald Reagan, MCA and the Mob, has a built-in safeguard if he is questioned about his tactics or sources or conclusions: the league, he claims, will "send its front line of defense, the loyal sportswriters, to attack the messenger." In other words, he has shielded himself in advance from criticism by people like me.
Too bad. For there is some really hot stuff in here, albeit warmed over. His examination of the 1980 Super Bowl ticket-selling scandal involving Georgia Frontiere, the multimillionaire owner of the Los Angeles Rams, and her husband, Dominic, who went to prison for tax evasion, shows that greed has no bottom line. And he raises truly disturbing questions about connections between some owners and friends who may be mob-connected, as well as about newspapers and television shows that regularly pander to people who bet on sports events. But there is too much sloppy journalism to trust the bulk of this book's 512 pages--including its whopping 64 pages of notes.
Mr. Moldea is obsessed, for example, with Joe Namath. He says that, as a rookie, the New York Jets' quarterback roomed with "Joe Hirsch, who wrote a betting line and an inside information sheet on professional sports."
Heady revelations--except that the courtly Mr. Hirsch happened to be the racing columnist and chief reporter for The Morning Telegraph (now The Racing Form). He still is. He never picked horses, never wrote "an inside information sheet." He is, in essence, the writer for the world of horse racing.
Mr. Moldea tells as well of Mr. Namath's "'guaranteeing" a victory in Super Bowl III shortly after a sinister meeting in a bar with a member of the opposition, Lou Michaels, the Baltimore Colts' place-kicker. The truth is that the pair almost came to blows after they both had been drinking; and Mr. Namath's well-publicized "guarantee" came about quite innocently at a Miami Touchdown Club dinner when a fan asked him if he thought the Jets had a chance. "We'll win. I guarantee it," Mr. Namath replied.
Mr. Moldea claims to be a football fan, yet his naivete is apparent, as is his ignorance of basic sports knowledge, while several errors in spelling call into question his diligence at simple fact-checking. He misspells the name of a Heisman Trophy winner (Howard Cassady), the top thoroughbred trainer in the United States (D. Wayne Lukas) and the president of the New York Jets (Steve Gutman).
He revives the discredited notion that Carroll Rosenbloom, the ornery owner of the Rams, who had a penchant for gambling, met foul play when he drowned in Florida 10 years ago.
He also offers still another recitation of the 1958 playoff game between the Baltimore Colts, then owned by Rosenbloom, and the New York Giants. The Colts disdained a field-goal attempt in overtime, choosing instead to go for a touchdown after they got close to the goal line. Mr. Moldea's implication is that they wanted to win by more than three points to beat the point spread.The Colts "again refused to send in kicker Myhra to end the game" with a field goal, he complains. What he doesn't state in his text is that Steve Myhra was among the worst place- kickers in the league, having missed three extra points and more than half his field-goal attempts during the season.
There may well be some insidious connection between the wise guys and the N.F.L. Then again, there may not. Interference, with its errors and unfounded insinuations, does not settle the issue. Mr. Moldea raises the questions, but has blunted his own sword of truth."
"Gerald Eskenazi, a sportswriter for The New York Times, is currently working with Carl Yastrzemski on his autobiography."
4. I had misspelled the names of Howard Cassady, Steve Gutman, and D. Wayne Lukas, all three of which had a total of four cites in the book's index.
The Los Angeles Times had misspelled the names of Cassady and Lukas in its December 7, 1986 and January 3, 1988 editions, respectively. The Washington Post--which had the audacity to attack me in a August 26, 1990 editorial, specifically for the misspellings--misspelled the names of both Gutman and Lukas on October 14, 1982 and October 6, 1983, respectively.
5. The following is the exact text of my letter to Rebecca Sinkler:
Dear Editor:Sincerely,In the September 3 review of my book, Interference: How Organized Crime Influences Professional Football, sportswriter Gerald Eskenazi made several deceptive and irresponsible charges against me. His conclusions were based upon five basic claims, which I would like to address one-by-one:
1. Charge: Eskenazi wrote that I did not know that Joe Hirsch was the racing columnist for the Morning Telegraph, now the Racing Form, a publication devoted to providing gamblers with wagering information.In the credit line to Eskenazi's review of my book, he was simply identified as "a sportswriter for The New York Times, [who] is currently working with Carl Yastrzemski on his autobiography." It is not noted that he also covers the NFL and specifically the New York Jets, upon whom he depends for professional access and sources. Of course, I do not object to being reviewed by a sportswriter; however, I do object to being reviewed by a beat writer with this apparent conflict of interest.Response: This is not true. In the second paragraph of page 139 of my book, I quoted former New York Jets quarterback Joe Namath as saying: "I met Joe [Hirsch] at his place of business, the race track. No, he doesn't book bets; at least, he's never booked any of my bets. Joe writes for the Morning Telegraph, which is read by known gamblers."
2. Charge: Leading the reader to believe that I claimed that Super Bowl III in 1969 was fixed, Eskenazi wrote that I charged that there was something premeditated and "sinister" about a meeting in a Miami bar between Namath and Baltimore Colts placekicker Lou Michaels during the week before the game. He added that I failed to point out that the meeting "almost came to blows."
Response: This is not true. I wrote in the second paragraph on page 197: "[Lou] Michaels told me that the meeting at a Miami bar/restaurant was quite accidental and even confrontational." Michaels's statement was corroborated during my interview with Jets' player Jim Hudson, who accompanied Namath to the bar. Further, I never claimed that the 1969 Super Bowl was fixed. To the contrary, I produced evidence on pages 194 and 198-199 discrediting the theory by Colts' player Bubba Smith that it was.
3. Charge: Eskenazi wrote that I "revived the discredited notion" that former Los Angeles Rams owner Carroll Rosenbloom, who drowned in 1979, was murdered.
Response: This is not true. In the fourth paragraph of page 360 of the book, I wrote: "The evidence appears to be clear that Rosenbloom died in a tragic accident and was not murdered." If anything, I discredited the report, "U.S. Inquiry Asked in Rosenbloom Death," which did help revive the case and was published on the sports pages of the New York Times on January 15, 1983.
4. Charge: Eskenazi claimed that my version of the alleged manipulation of the point spread in the 1958 NFL championship game between the Colts and the New York Giants was nothing more than mere "implication" on my part.
Response: This is not true. In paragraphs five through seven on page 91 of my book, I quoted three knowledgeable sources--oddsmaker Bobby Martin, as well as bookmakers Ed Curd and Gene Nolan--who described the betting and how it was accomplished.
5. Charge: Eskenazi wrote that I do not "state in the text that Steve Myhra was among the worst placekickers in the league."
Response: This is not true. In the third paragraph of page 90 of the book, I quoted the Colts head coach Weeb Ewbank, who told me, in part: "We did not have a great field goal kicker." Also, in footnote #1 on page 444 of my book, which refers to the Ewbank quote, I wrote: "Baltimore, in 1958, had the second worst field goal percentage in the NFL, 35.7 percent, making five of fourteen attempts."
I would appreciate it if Eskenazi's reply to this letter be fact-checked--just as his review should have been.
Dan E. Moldea
6. Later, when the New York Times began receiving public criticism for refusing to publish my letter, New York Times in-house counsel George Freeman simply began denying that the newspaper had ever received it--despite the existence of my Federal Express airbill, documentation of billing and payment on my American Express statements, and even Federal Express's official confirmation of delivery to the Times.
However, former National Book Critics Circle president Jack Miles of the Los Angeles Times, wrote in the August 1994 edition of the NBCC Journal: "[A]fter Moldea urged the NBCC [National Book Critics Circle] to take a public position in his support, I had phoned Freeman for the express purpose of asking whether the New York Times had ever received the letter in question. At that time, he confirmed that the Times had indeed received the letter but, finding it without merit, had not published it."
7. On January 11, 1992, the Washington Post published the results of a scathing investigation of Judge Penn, who, by virtue of his seniority, was slated to become the chief judge of the federal court in the District of Columbia. The Post charged that he had amassed a backlog of "70 aging cases--nearly double the number of older cases pending before any other federal judge in the District." Four of these cases dated back to the 1970s.
In an editorial four days later, the Post stated: "Delays experienced by hundreds of litigants in Judge Penn's court are unfair and should be remedied. If the judge believes that he cannot in good conscience handle a reduced caseload and the important administrative responsibilities of a chief judge, he should decline the post [as chief judge] and concentrate on improving his performance as a trial judge."
My attorneys filed their motion on the same day as the publication of the Post's editorial.
8. Also, with my attorneys' approval, in the Postscript to the 1993 reprint of my 1978 book, The Hoffa Wars, I recounted the New York Times's long history of making payoffs to mob associates in return for labor peace. I further stated, "As of this writing in August 1992, the district attorney's office in New York is again conducting an investigation of the Mafia's penetration of the city's newspaper industry through its distribution operations. Already, according to a prosecutor in the DA's office, employees of the New York Times and at least one other newspaper have been indicted for making payoffs to mobsters, and the probe is continuing with the Times's cooperation."
Also, the New Republic reported in its February 17, 1992, issue: "The emergence of a convicted Lucchese associate in labor negotiations with the New York Times was a vivid reminder of publishing's dirty little secret: its long-standing, deeply ingrained relationship with organized crime."
9. Garbus's first article appeared in Newsday on March 10, which beget his article in the Legal Times on March 14, which beget yet another piece in Daily Variety on April 11, which beget a final guest column in Publishers Weekly on April 25. Two of these articles even had the same headline: "My Mother, Book Reviews and the First Amendment."
We half-expected Garbus to publish similar stories in Popular Mechanics and the Weekly Reader.
10. Of course, life went on. Four days after the filing of our petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, Kenneth Starr was chosen as the independent counsel for the Whitewater inquiry of President Bill Clinton by a three-judge panel selected by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Almost immediately, citizen groups protested that, Judge David Sentelle, a member of the judicial panel that selected Starr, had been seen three weeks earlier, huddled with two rabidly anti-Clinton Republican senators.
On August 9, four days after Starr's appointment, Judge Abner Mikva, the dissenting judge in Moldea I, was named as the likely new White House counsel, who, as part of his job, would be dealing with the new Whitewater prosecutor. The appointment of Mikva became official on August 11.
Succeeding Mikva, as the chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia was Harry Edwards, who wrote Moldea I and then reversed it with Moldea II. Almost immediately, Edwards accepted the responsibility of deciding whether Judge David Sentelle, his colleague on the appellate court, had acted properly in his selection of Kenneth Starr as the Whitewater prosecutor.
As the battle over the circumstances of Starr's appointment raged on, Edwards exonerated Sentelle who had met with the two Republican senators. Insisting that judges may consult with anyone they wish before rendering their decisions, Edwards wrote in a sixteen-page opinion, "There may be some members of society who would question the actions of the accused judge, for they have a pristine (albeit arguably naive) view of the appointment process. But this is irrelevant."
To the citizen-activists who filed the initial complaint, it was very relevant. One citizen group leader asked, "Would [Edwards] consult with the head of the Mafia before he makes a decision on organized crime? It leaves the door wide open for anybody to consult with anybody on anything."
In its editorial about Edwards's decision about the matter of Judge Sentelle, the New York Times was extremely critical, writing that Edwards's ruling was "appalling," because Edwards claimed that "citizens are 'naive' to expect judges to behave non-politically."
My awe and respect for the Times grew considerably after the publication of my fifth book, The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy: An Investigation of Motive, Means, and Opportunity (W.W. Norton & Company), during the spring of 1995. Anticipating that my work would be either ignored or ravaged by the Times, my supporters and I were floored when the Times's principal daily book critic, Christopher Lehmann-Haupt, gave my book a highly-favorable daily review on May 25. Then, on June 18, the Sunday New York Times Book Review followed with another fabulous review.
On June 5, 1995, reporter Alex Kuczynski, who is now a staff reporter for the New York Times, wrote in an article for the New York Observer:
"A rave review by the New York Times' venerated book reviewer Christopher Lehmann-Haupt is every author's dream. But are your chances even better if you've brought a lawsuit against the Times for their last review of one of your books?
"On Thursday, May 25, the New York Times published a highly favorable review, by Mr. Lehmann-Haupt, of Dan E. Moldea's The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy: An Investigation of Motive, Means and Opportunity. The book, Mr. Lehmann-Haupt wrote, was 'carefully reasoned and ultimately persuasive'; Mr. Moldea's 'dramatic account . . . brings the point of dispute into sharper focus, leading the reader to believe that the author is on the verge of a major discovery.' Mr. Lehmann-Haupt concluded: '[H]is book should be read, not so much for the irrefutability of its conclusions as for the way the author has brought order out of a chaotic tale and turned an appalling tatter of history into an emblem of our misshapen times.'
"' . . . I thought it was a really classy thing for both Christopher Lehmann-Haupt and the Times to do,' Mr. Moldea told the Observer. 'Sometimes when you're reviewed, you get a real pro and other times you get a shill for the institution you're writing about. The last time I got a shill, this time I got a pro.'
"Said Mr. Lehmann-Haupt: 'I just sort of put my head in the sand and tried to judge the book on its own merits. That to me is the job of a good reviewer.'"
Then, in February 1997, my sixth book, Evidence Dismissed: The Inside Story of the Police Investigation of O.J. Simpson--which I co-authored with LAPD Detective Tom Lange and Philip Vannatter--went on the New York Times Best Seller List, where it remained for five weeks.
The Times did not review my seventh book, A Washington Tragedy: How the Death of Vincent Foster Ignited a Political Firestorm, which chronicled the official investigations of the 1993 suicide of the deputy White House counsel--but that's another story.
Moldea's detailed response to the specific issues in the Times's review:
Re: Eskenazi's lead and the issue of "sloppy journalism"
Although we are challenging the contents of the first five paragraphs of Eskenazi's review of Interference, I will not take time here to cite the specifics of our objections. However, with regard to Eskenazi's first three paragraphs, I wrote on page 25 of the book's Prologue:
"[T]his story doesn't presume criminal guilt by association--although associations between NFL personnel and gamblers clearly violate the NFL's own rules. Yet, organized crime is 'enterprise crime,' crime by association, and operates accordingly . . . What this book does is outline the patterns of association that have been tolerated by the NFL while the league and the federal government were claiming to take a hard line against organized crime and its influence on professional sports."
In my [then] eighteen years as an organized-crime reporter, I have always been extremely sensitive to alleging "guilt by association." I deeply resent and will challenge the nature and tone of Eskenazi's baseless charge in the review's lead.
Regarding paragraph four, not one single sportswriter from any publication called and asked for my documentation about any of the claims contained in the book. Considering the gravity of my charges against the NFL, I expected them to be, at the very least, more curious.
Also, we are challenging one of Eskenazi's conclusions, among others, in the fifth paragraph: that my book contained "too much sloppy journalism." To support this, Eskenazi cited several examples, which form the basis of our case: that the review clearly contains provably false facts.
I cite the following information as an addendum to my November 15, 1989, letter to Rebecca Sinkler, the editor of the New York Times Book Review.
Charge: In Eskenazi's review, he wrote:
"Mr. Moldea is obsessed, for example, with Joe Namath. He says that, as a rookie, the New York Jets' quarterback roomed with 'Joe Hirsch, who wrote a betting line and an inside information sheet on professional sports.'
"Heady revelations--except that the courtly Mr. Hirsch happened to be the racing columnist and chief reporter for The Morning Telegraph (now The Racing Form). He still is. He never picked horses, never wrote 'an inside information sheet.' He is, in essence, the writer for the world of horse racing." (Emphasis added)
Response: Eskenazi's charge that I was unaware of who Joe Hirsch is not true. I accurately described Hirsch and his work in my book. In the second paragraph of page 139 of Interference, I quoted Joe Namath from page 153 of his autobiography, I Can't Wait Until Tomorrow . . . 'Cause I Get Better Looking Every Day:
"I met Joe [Hirsch] at his place of business, the race track. No, he doesn't book bets; at least, he's never booked any of my bets. Joe writes for The Morning Telegraph, which is read by known gamblers. We met because Mr. Werblin, who was then president of the Jets, suggested that Joe, an old friend of his, look me up and show me around." (Emphasis added)
With regard to Eskenazi's claim that Hirsch "never picked horses, never wrote 'an inside information sheet,'" I cite the following examples of Hirsch's own work between the pre-Kentucky Derby and post-Belmont Stakes periods of 1965.
In one article, "Derby Day Doings," dated May 3, 1965, Hirsch wrote:
"Joe Namath, the $400,000 quarterback of the New York Jets, paused outside the office of Churchill Downs president Wathen Knebelkamp to chat amiably with Paul Hornung of the Green Bay Packers. The NFL and AFL have not gotten down to peace parlays yet, but fraternization among the troops is rampant. Namath, incidentally, selected Hail to All as his Derby pick, while Hornung preferred Lucky Debonair."
In the same article, Hirsch noted:
"Monmouth Park boasted one of the largest groups of officials at the Derby. Vice president Phil Iselin, directors David Werblin and Townsend Martin . . . were among those present."
The significance of this is that Iselin, Werblin, and Martin were three of the four owners of the New York Jets. (The other was Leon Hess.)
Articles in which Hirsch picked horses:
* May 1, 1965, "Magic of Kentucky Derby Real, Moving, Pervasive":
"The setbacks of the winner are past now. Whether or not they consumed too much time will be evident enough in a matter of hours. If he is ready, and Winfrey is confident he is, we think Bold Lad will stay a mile and a quarter. He looks like too much of a horse not to stay. We like him to win the Kentucky Derby. We think it will be close, but we like Bold Lad to win it."
* May 4, 1965, "'It's Like a Dream,' Happy Catrone Says":
"The best horse won the Derby; the best horse on Saturday, May 1. There is every reason to expect Lucky Debonair will be the best horse again on Saturday, May 15. Whether or not he will still be the best horse on Saturday, June 5, remains to be seen."
* May 29, 1965, "National, Fit and Footloose, One to Beat in Cherry Hill":
"Fresh from a convincing victory in Aqueduct's Roseben Handicap, Reginald Webster's National, with hard-riding Bob Ussery in the saddle, appears the one to beat for all the money in Saturday's Cherry Hill Handicap . . . "
* June 5, 1965, "30-1 (Derby), 15-2 (Preakness) And a Near-Favorite (Belmont): 'Full of Himself These Mornings,' Winfrey Advises"; "He Is a 'Natural Distance Horse' Going Mile, Half." (This article includes Hirsch's exclusive interview with Dapper Dan trainer Bill Winfrey.):
"Though he finished a cracking fourth in the Wood Memorial beaten less than two lengths for all the money, Dapper Dan was an outsider to the betting public on Derby Day. He went off at 30-1 and just missed the victorious Lucky Debonair by a neck. In the Preakness, his odds dropped to 15-2, and again he missed by a neck . . . Winfrey is batting 1.000 in Belmont Stakes competition. He saddled Native Dancer to win the 1953 renewal, and the gray horse is his only previous starter. Winfrey would like to maintain his average through the weekend, at least, and after the disappointment of Bold Lad's Derby, the law of averages would seen to indicate the breaks may be in his and Dapper Dan's favor."
* June 5, 1965, "Tom Rolfe Slight Favorite Over Dapper Dan in Big A Mile, Half":
"Tom Rolfe, third in the Kentucky Derby and hero of the Preakness, is expected to go off a slight favorite . . . Tom Rolfe is 6-5 overnight, with Dapper Dan 7-5 . . . "
Articles in which Hirsch gave readers inside information:
* May 1, 1965, "Definitely Something 'Lucky' About Catrone in Classic." Under this headline, Hirsch wrote two stories: "Spotted 'Debonair's' Potential as Yearling: Trainer 'Thrilled' by Derby Scene; Recalls Hildreth's '23 Win With Zev"; and "'Shoe's' Not on Favorite, 2nd Choice Suits Him Fine: Upset on Candy Spots, Hill Rise."
* May 1, 1965, "Rice, Grain Executive, Bids to Beat Wheatley: Owner Carefully Supervises Racing and Breeding Interests."
* May 15, 1965, "'I Can Say It Now: He Is a Hell of a Horse': Trainer Says Charge Enjoyed 'Some Good Luck' in Preparation for Today."
* May 18, 1965, "Cast Shoe at Pimlico: Dapper Dan Set; Lucky Debonair Out Two Months." (Also in the article, which has a diagram of the Lucky Debonair's injury, are Hirsch's exclusive interviews with the trainers of other horses racing in the Preakness.)
* May 20, 1965, "Old Daddy Is One of Those 'Bonded' Yearling Bargains":
"Bernie Bond knows value and he knows horses. A parlay of his knowledge resulted in a victory by Old Daddy in the recent Valley Forge Handicap here [Garden State Park, Cherry Hill, N.J.], and Old Daddy won't be 14-1 again when he goes postward in Saturday's $25,000 Camden Handicap at a mile and an eighth." (The column includes Hirsch's exclusive interview with trainer Bond.)
* May 21, 1965, "Native Charger Gallops Well, Probable for Jersey Derby":
"Native Charger, who had been put away permanently in post-Preakness reports, galloped strongly here [Garden State Park in Cherry Hill, N.J.] this morning as he did yesterday, and there appears to be a good chance the Flamingo and Florida Derby winner will be ready for the $100,000 Jersey Derby on Memorial Day." Hirsch goes on in the column to interview Native Chargers's trainer.
* May 28, 1965, "7 to Compete In $123,600 Jersey Derby":
"Mrs. Ben Cohen's Hail to All, the Preakness third, and George D. Widener's Cornish Prince, winner of last week-end's Trial, are expected to share the favorite's role for Monday's sixth modern running of the $100,000 added Jersey Derby at nine furlongs."
* June 2, 1965, "Winfrey Pleased: Tom Rolfe Here For Mile, Half; 5 or 6 May Start." (The article included Hirsch's exclusive interview with Dapper Dan trainer Bill Winfrey just before the Belmont Stakes.)
* June 5, 1965, "Yowell Sure Hail to All Will Be 'Thereabouts': Honest Colt Has Brought Back Checks in 18 or His 21 Outings." (The article includes Hirsch's exclusive interview with Eddie Yowell, the trainer for Hail to All.)
* June 5, 1965, "Selari, La Cima: 2 Longshots With a Long Way to Go." There are two articles written by Hirsch: "Pardue Admits Charge 'Green', But Has Outstanding Potential"; and "Young, in '61, sent 65-1 Sherluck to Win."
* June 5, 1965, "Tom Rolfe Getting 'Fat' on Rich Classic Diet: Whiteley Says Colt 'Thrives on Racing.'" (This article includes Hirsch's exclusive interview with Tom Rolfe's trainer Frank Whiteley, Jr.)
* June 5, 1965, "Selari, La Cima: 2 Longshots With a Long Way to Go." (Two articles in which Hirsch features his exclusive interviews with the horses' two trainers.)
* June 8, 1965, "Dapper Dan Chips Knee Bone, Out Till Fall Following Surgery." (This article includes Hirsch's exclusive interview with Dapper Dan's trainer Bill Winfrey.)
Also, in 1969, Hirsch wrote a book, A Treasury of Questions and Answers from The Morning Telegraph. This book is filled with gambling and handicapping data, as well as inside information. Specifically included in this book are chapters entitled, "Tips From The Trainers" and "Handicapping Hints."
Charge: Eskenazi claimed that:
"Mr. Moldea tells as well of Mr. Namath's 'guaranteeing' a victory in Super Bowl III shortly after a sinister meeting in a bar with a member of the opposition, Lou Michaels, the Baltimore Colts' place-kicker. The truth is that the pair almost came to blows after they both had been drinking; and Mr. Namath's well-publicized 'guarantee' came about quite innocently at a Miami Touchdown Club dinner when a fan asked him if he thought the Jets had a chance. 'We'll win. I guarantee it,' Mr. Namath replied." (Emphasis added)
Response: I never charged that anything about this meeting between Michaels and Namath was premeditated or "sinister." The facts contained in my book were consistent with Eskenazi's own version of the Namath-Michaels incident in the Miami bar. In fact, I interviewed both Michaels and the Jets' defensive back, Jim Hudson, the man who had accompanied Namath to the bar that night.
In the second paragraph of page 197 of Interference, I wrote:
"[Lou] Michaels told me that the meeting at a Miami bar/restaurant was quite accidental and even confrontational. 'I was with Danny Sullivan [a Colts offensive lineman and Michaels's roommate] at a table in the back, and he saw Namath and Jim Hudson come in. Namath was wearing his big, full-length fur coat. So I said to Danny, 'Let me go up and get another drink for us.' I walked up to the bar. I wanted to shake hands with Joe. But he pointed his finger at me and said, 'We're going to kick the shit out of you, and I'm going to do it.' And he pointed to himself. And that got me very upset. He caught me off guard, and it put me in a different mood. He tried to aggravate me . . . We went back and forth, exchanging words. At one point, I told him, 'I'd like to have you outside, just for one minute.' After that, we calmed down and relaxed.
"'I went back to Danny and told him what happened. Then, after a while, Hudson came over to our table and started talking and then Joe came over, too. We sat there for about an hour or so. We had two or three drinks. I don't remember.
"'Joe paid for the whole tab. He threw a hundred- dollar bill down and gave us a ride back to our hotel in his rented car. Nothing particular was discussed on the way back. What we talked about had no relationship to the game.
"Hudson agrees with Michaels that 'nothing technical' about the game was discussed. 'Everybody had been drinking--and maybe Lou more than others. Joe didn't start it. I remember Lou talking about how they were going to kick our asses.'
"Soon after the incident between Namath and Michaels took place, Namath came out publicly and guaranteed the game. 'We're going to win Sunday,' Namath boasted. 'I'll guarantee you.'" (Emphasis added)
Eskenazi wanted the reader to believe that I irresponsibly alleged that the 1969 Super Bowl had been fixed. However, in no place in my book do I ever make any such allegation. In fact, I provided clear evidence on pages 198-199 that the game wasn't fixed, and specifically debunked Colts player Bubba Smith's version that it was.
Prior to Eskenazi's review, videotapes of interviews during my book tour clearly show that I stated repeatedly that the 1969 Super Bowl was not fixed.
Charge: Eskenazi wrote:
"Mr. Moldea claims to be a football fan, yet his naivete is apparent, as is his ignorance of basic sports knowledge, while several errors in spelling call into question his diligence at simple fact-checking. He misspells the name of a Heisman Trophy winner (Howard Cassady), the top thoroughbred trainer in the United States (D. Wayne Lukas) and the president of the New York Jets (Steve Gutman)."
Response: For the record, I spelled Cassady, "Cassidy"; I spelled Lukas, "Lucas"; and I spelled Gutman, "Guttman." There are a total of four cites to these three names in my index.
I received the spelling of all three names from other published sources. I misspelled them just as they had:
1. Howard [Cassidy]
Washington Post
a. Detroit Police Department report, January 8, 1963b. Los Angeles Times, December 7, 1986
2. Steve [Guttman]
a. Washington Post, October 14, 1982
3. D. Wayne [Lucas]
a. , October 6, 1983
b. Los Angeles Times, January 3, 1988
For the record, the New York Times, like most publications, often misspells the names of people mentioned in the newspaper. For instance, the New York Times, misspelled the name of Richie Petitbon, the defensive coordinator for the Super Bowl champion Washington Redskins, in a January 12, 1992, article by Times sportswriter Thomas George. George repeatedly spelled Petitbon's name "Pettibone," even though Petitbon was a principal subject throughout the article. In the Times's published correction the following day, there was no mention that George's "naivete is apparent, as is his ignorance of basic sports knowledge."
Re: Was Carroll Rosenbloom Murdered?
Charge: Eskenazi claimed that:
"He [Moldea] revives the discredited notion that Carroll Rosenbloom, the ornery owner of the Rams, who had a penchant for gambling, met foul play when he drowned in Florida 10 years ago." (Emphasis added)
Response: I object to this statement as much as anything in this review. Since the January 1983 Frontline program on public television, "An Unauthorized History of the NFL"--which did "revive" the issue--there has been speculation by responsible people as to whether or not Rosenbloom was murdered.
I attempted to prove or disprove this theory and went to great lengths to interview the witnesses at the scene, including the police officer who attempted to rescue Rosenbloom. I even found the four autopsy photographs that were missing from the coroner's jacket on the Rosenbloom case and had these photographs analyzed by a variety of law enforcement officials. I reported on page 360 that one of these officials:
" . . . told me that the pictures showed no evidence of foul play . . . Others who reviewed the material came to the same conclusion."
Any reasonable reading of the section in my book about this matter clearly shows that I discredited Frontline's charges about Rosenbloom's death. In fact, my investigation nearly cost me my friendships with those who worked on the Frontline project, the same people who brought me into this investigation in 1983.
My own conclusion on Rosenbloom's death is clearly stated in the fourth paragraph of page 360 of Interference, where I wrote:
"In short, the evidence appears to be clear that Rosenbloom died in a tragic accident and was not murdered." (Emphasis added)
New York Times Articles Indicating Possible Foul Play in CR's Death
If any publication is responsible for "reviving" the debate over the circumstances of Rosenbloom's death, it is the New York Times. I cite the following Times stories that discussed Rosenbloom's death and the possibility of foul play:
1. December 28, 1980, New York Times article, "Off-Field Woes Plague N.F.L."
"Last week, for example, Rozelle said that a West Coast newspaper, acting on a tip, had phoned him seeking information on whether Rosenbloom's death may have been a homicide.
"Rozelle said he told the paper he knew nothing of the report. Lieut. Louis Rogers, a member of the homicide division of the Dade County (Fla.) Public Safety Department, said from Miami that the Rosenbloom case was closed.
"'To my knowledge, there is no intention to reopen the case,' he said earlier in the week.
"Dr. Joseph H. Davis, the Dade County medical examiner, also said that Rosenbloom's death 'did not sound at all like a homicide.'
"'There were people who were witnesses,' Dr. Davis said. 'One person who saw him and tried to rescue him had to turn back because of the undertow. Everything we could determine was that he was a victim of environment.'"
2. January 14, 1983, New York Times article, "Ex-Gambler Claims Pro Football Fixes."
"The documentary also renewed speculation that the 1979 drowning of Carroll Rosenbloom, the owner of the Los Angeles Rams and previously the Baltimore Colts, was really murder. The program said that Rosenbloom was a heavy bettor."
3. January 15, 1983, New York Times article, "U.S. Inquiry Asked in Rosenbloom Death."
"A [Los Angeles] county supervisor today asked the Justice Department to investigate charges that Carroll Rosenbloom, then the owner of the Los Angeles Rams, may have been murdered in 1979 in Florida and did not accidentally drown . . ."
4. January 17, 1983, New York Times article, "TV: N.F.L. and Crime."
"There is one main assay into investigative reporting, an apparently successful effort to track down a witness to the drowning in 1979 of Carroll Rosenbloom, owner of the Los Angeles Rams. The witness tells of his suspicions that murder was done, although he did not actually see a crime being committed. One of the interviewed convicts also thinks that Mr. Rosenbloom was murdered, and a lie-detector test confirms that he believes that he is telling the truth--but he was not there . . . In any event, whether Mr. Rosenbloom was killed or not does not add a nickel to the sum of our knowledge about game fixing, despite Miss [Jessica] Savitch's opinion that he was 'perhaps the first N.F.L. owner whose underworld ties led to his death.'"
5. January 19, 1983, New York Times article, "Strange Accident."
[In a "Sports People" news brief in the Times, reporting an accident involving Steve Rosenbloom, the former general manager of the NFL's New Orleans Saints, the no byline story stated:] "The incident occurred a day before the telecast of a documentary suggesting that Rosenbloom's father, Carroll Rosenbloom, the Rams' owner who drowned in 1979, might have been murdered as a result of his gambling activities. Steve Rosenbloom said in that telecast that he believed his father had been slain."
6. January 30. 1983, New York Times article, "Pete Rozelle's World: Shaken but Not Fallen."
"Among the facts and charges was the suggestion that Carroll Rosenbloom had been murdered. Rosenbloom had been the owner of the Los Angeles Rams, and he had been widely known as a man who gambled and had ties with big-time gamblers, one of several N.F.L. owners with such predilections and such associates.
"A look at the relationship between Rosenbloom and Rozelle gives an indication of the inner workings of the world of the commissioner.
"'If I were a betting person,' Pete Rozelle said, 'I'd bet a thousand to one that Carroll was not murdered.'
"Rosenbloom drowned in 1979 near his home in Golden Beach, Fla. PBS uncovered a witness who claims to have seen 'a man in a black wet suit' swim away. He assumed that the man had held Rosenbloom underwater until he drowned.
"'By coincidence I had talked to Carroll that morning,' said Rozelle.
"'We'd had a vendetta for three years, but in the last six months we had gotten back together on civil terms.
"'Well, that morning he had told me that he had planned to play tennis, but that it was too windy.
"'It does seem strange, though, that he'd go swimming if it was that windy.'"
At no time has the New York Times ever put the matter of Rosenbloom's death to rest.
Once again, prior to Eskenazi's review, videotapes of interviews during my book tour clearly show that I stated repeatedly that Carroll Rosenbloom was not murdered. And I sought and obtained what the New York Times never did: the evidence to prove it.
Re: The Bet on the 1958 NFL Championship Game
Charge: Eskenazi wrote:
"He [Moldea] also offers still another recitation of the 1958 playoff game between the Baltimore Colts, then owned by Rosenbloom, and the New York Giants. The Colts disdained a field-goal attempt in overtime, choosing instead to go for a touchdown after they got close to the goal line. Mr. Moldea's implication is that they wanted to win by more than three points to beat the point spread." (Emphasis added)
Response: With regard to Rosenbloom's alleged bet on the 1958 NFL Championship Game, I not only provided evidence of the wager, but I also named the sources who gave it to me. In the fourth paragraph of page 91 of Interference, I wrote:
"Once and for all, Rosenbloom did indeed bet on the game, and it was for a million dollars, which he split with a friend.
"Oddsmaker Bobby Martin confirmed the wager to me. 'We knew that there was unnatural money showing up and driving the spread up,' Martin says. 'We ascertained that Lou Chesler and another guy were making bets for and with Carroll Rosenbloom. Chesler was known as a big gambler.'
"[Oddsmaker] Ed Curd also knew about the Rosenbloom bet. '[Bookmaker] Gil Beckley was one of my best friends, and he always wanted to get my opinion on things. He told me about the 1958 championship game. Carroll had done his business with Gil. And Carroll was quite a player.'
"Gene Nolan of Baton Rouge, another major bookmaker and close associate of Beckley, confirmed, 'Gil handled that overtime game bet.'" (Emphasis added)
Eskenazi's criticism of this portion of my book, without noting my named sources and source material, leaves the reader with the clear impression that my conclusions were based upon nothing more than my own "implication."
In his 1976 book about the New York Giants, Eskenazi, himself, speculated about the possible betting scenario in the 1958 championship game. Eskenazi wrote:
"Fans, most bettors, and some historians wonder about the last plays. Unitas brought the Colts to the 8 as he stumped the Giants with an attack that just wore down the defense. It was now first do