You’re mixing things. Big AL called her a queen based on one incident. He does cite any other example on this blog. He does not mention the Pierce case.

You are taking Big Al’s example, and Jill’s, to say that it makes a pattern (based on what I wrote.)

I read Pelisek’s and Barrett’s piece, and I think it’s fair to question Barrett, but I don’t think it’s the same as Big Al’s gripe.

And I don’t see Jill Stewart agreeing (or disagreeing) with Big Al’s decision to crown Barrett the queen. (Maybe Big Al has a few more coronations up his sleeve.)

But from what I’ve read by Jill Stewart, and from what I used to hear on KPCC, she’s not the shy and subtle type. So if she agreed with Big Al, she should have come out and said it – unless that was not her.

Clicking on the link in Stewart’s comment, you’ll find the following analysis: But Barrett’s softball interview leaves out most of the key controversies swirling around Tennie Pierce, and some of those controversies helped discredit Pierce in the eyes of the public.

It may not be enough to declare a trend, but it’s enough to meet your “more than one example” test.

So Big Al, if you’re gonna proclaim Beth the queen for one apparent mistake, then god knows how much fucking royalty we have in the journalism world.

It really looks lik Beth got hosed. Maybe she should have done a better job of handling it. Maybe HER EDITOR should have done a better job of handling it than suggesting/implying that Beth was wrong while beth is on vacation. That is bullshit. I guess when you become an editor, you leave your balls and spine at home. Why not say “let me talk to beth so I can get her side of the story and I’ll get back to you.” In this day, it’s not hard to track her down.

And I do hope that before the DN wrote the editorial (which is fair) they checked in with Beth. I would hate to think there’s more to the story than what’s been mentioned here.

From the the editorial: Politicians, celebrities and other powerful people have been playing games like this ever since there was a press to play with. It’s unfortunate, and the public likely has little idea of the manipulation that goes on behind the scenes every day just to get public officials to grudgingly provide important information.

Pathetic and amateurish if that’s what they did.

The Nahai story wasn’t journalism, it was a DWP press release with Beth’s byline on it. And you don’t do her any favors by admitting that she knew the back story and chose to leave it out. That makes her worse than a spoon-fed toady — it makes her a hack. The bigger question now is whether her editors know, and left it out on purpose. Between this story and the Tennie Pierce puff piece, the Daily News under new leadership appears to be tacking on a feckless new course. Is that purposeful direction, or just the aimless wandering of a rudderless ship?

I’ve always respected your work, which is why I’m disappointed by this juvenile attack on Beth. Yes, it’s shitty that Nahai took his story to someone else to get back at you for annoying his sensibilities. But I know you know that this kind of thing happens all the time in journalism. And believe me it happened to Beth enough times after she filed public record requests with the city only to have the information leaked to the Times. It’s the game, and calling Beth names is beneath you, particularly when she’s away and can’t defend herself. Besides, Beth would better be know as the Queen of Public Records because I don’t know anyone who has filed more of them at City Hall.

Also, she wasn’t snookered. She knew she was benefiting from your spat with Nahai. Should she have reported that? Yeah, probably, if for no other reason than it makes a better story. Working journalists these days have to suffer enough unfair attacks by people not in the business, why must we savage each other?