the Editor of the San Francisco Sentinel
Pat: I read
your note in response to Matt's email to you yesterday. Suffice it to say
that I was anything but satisfied by your suggestion that your decision to
publish false accusations of such a serious nature without contacting the
person accused (by unnamed sources) of making the statements could be
justified based on a past unreturned phone call.
This was a
smear attack, a truly false one, Pat. Although you were used to
disseminate this falsehood, I still hold out the possibility that you were
not knowingly so used. A simple apology, as opposed to bitter comments
about word counts is in order. By the way, Matt's piece was 170 words,
less than half the limit. Why give your readers the impression he exceeded
the limit, when his piece wasn't even close?
have spent a great deal of time with Matt. The real point here is that you
know Matt is a good guy, who is off practicing law, and helping some
people who need help. Obviously, some people see him still as a threat,
and are working overtime trying to jin up bogus negative stories about
him. Ask yourself why they are doing this, Pat, and whether you want to be
a part of it.