The Coverup Is Always Worse Than The Crime
Posted on July 28, 2009 at 2:51 pm
On Friday of last week, I got a curious email. It contained two links.
One was a link to a photo in this collection of Heather Byrd photos from the birthday party of Manuel, the “king of country couture.”
The other link was to a search string at the lobbyist portal of the Tennessee Ethics Commission website. The emailer asked if I recognized anyone in the picture.
The link to the Ethics Commission website did not go to the specific entry the emailer intended so I asked who it was I was supposed to be looking at. The emailer responded that one of the burlesque dancers in the photo(s) was lobbyist Rose Cox.
I must admit it was intriguing. Cox’s Linkedin picture and her lobbyist registration photo did reveal a woman similar to the one in the racy photos.
I found Rose Cox on Facebook (again looking plausible as the dancer), made a friend request and sent her a message along with the link asking her if she was the womanl in the picture.
“Nope. I have a doppelganger. Thanks for asking, though,” Cox replied simply.
Although the resemblance was striking, clearly there was not enough proof that the woman was her and, even if it were, I wasn’t sure what it would really prove. A female lobbyist likes to dress up and party hard? And?
So, I had pretty much decided to drop it when yesterday I remembered someone I could ask about whether the girl looked familiar. I clicked on the link I was sent on Friday.
The picture I was sent wasn’t there. And while earlier there had been seventeen pictures in the gallery, now there were only thirteen. Four pictures, all of a woman who someone thought looked like the lobbyist Rose Cox, had been removed.
I decided to facebook Cox again noting that the pics of her “doppleganger” had been removed (thank you Google cache).
“You are about the 8 millionth person to ask if that was me in those photos. I just decided enough was enough- kind of tired of the comparison/gossip. So I asked to have them removed,” Cox said.
I found curious that the Tennessean would remove photos at the request of someone that wasn’t in them. I expressed this curiosity to Ms. Cox and she replied that “it is all in the asking.”
I queried Cox again if she was the women in the pictures. She again said no. I asked her if she was at the party where the pictures were taken. She said that she was at the party. Cox said she remembered the woman in the pictures but that she was wearing a different outfit than the pictured woman.
“I was at the party as a guest of one of Manuel’s daughter’s friends. I was wearing a long, cream dress with a blue and yellow floral pattern. If I see any pictures of myself there, I will let you know.
I remember seeing the gal there from the website. The trendy/20’s haircut is very similar,” offered Cox.
By this time, I had emailed the Tennessean to ask them why the photos has been removed and for what reason. The response that came back was from Mark Silverman, Vice President of Content and Audience Development.
“We removed several images upon request of the person in them.”
I told Cox about the response, again by Facebook message, and she said she was “aware of that” and that we should speak by phone.
On the phone, Cox again denied that she was the girl in the photo(s) and said that she had emailed several friends to see if they had any photos of her at the party. She even suggested she might have one with the dancers in question.
I asked her why she had told the Tennessean that she was the girl in the pictures.
“Those pictures first circulated with my name attached a month ago when they were first posted. I had forgotten about them. When you asked about them I finally got tired of the rumors and decided to have them taken down,” Cox explained. “I figured it would be easier if I just said I was the girl in the picture.”
So, either Rose Cox is the woman in the picture and she lied to me or she isn’t and she lied to the Tennessean. So whatever the truth of the matter, the lesson here is clear: the coverup is always worse than the crime.
Had the pictures never been removed, I likely wouldn’t be telling this story and these pictures, whoever they are of, would have remained forgotten.
Crisis management is not about trying to clean up, hide, cover up and bury evidence when the crap hits the fan. Well, sometimes it may be. But frequently, the best management of a crisis is in keeping control of it.
It doesn’t mean that nothing comes out that embarrasses the subject. Often that can’t be helped. Crisis management is about containment, not rollback.
The best way to handle an embarrassment is to recognize when something can’t be fixed. The best crisis management is done when the subject recognizes a whole bunch of toothpaste outside of a tube and sees that the process of stuffing it back in will just make it worse.
Some situations call for an apology, some call for a sense of humor and some for just a good thick skin. But the coverup is almost allows worse than the crime.
The question should never be: How do we clean this up? The question should be instead: How do we use this to our advantage or how do gain control of this?
But most importantly the question should be: How do we not make this worse?
SEE ALSO: Betsy Phillips
Comments
138 Responses to “The Coverup Is Always Worse Than The Crime”
Wow, nice work Kleinheider.
Should have asked Ms. Cox if she has the same tattoo as the woman in the photos.
Wait, so the lesson here is that if you try and cover something up, what will happen is that your story will be broadcast all over the Internets, to be read by people who had no idea who you were prior to reading about it?
“A Man’s Got to Have a Code?”
Nice little parable. Too bad Ms. Cox had to be dragged out in front of us to tell the story.
Don’t much see the point to this. But is that Ted Kennedy smacking her bottom in that one pic?
Who cares? This woman holds no office, elected, appointed, or otherwise. So what that she’s a lobbyist?
Agree with SayUncle (funny Teddy joke) and The OG Ben- what’s the issue here?
This just makes you look like a bully. What, exactly, is the point? Don’t lie to ACK?
Creepy “reporting,” ACK.
A lobbyist lied? Stop the presses!
The point is, if you’re a Senate staffer sending out racist pictures of the President from a government address, Kleinheider believes you have a right to privacy. If you’re a lobbyist who may or may not be featured in sexually suggestive pictures somewhere on the Internet, then you are worthy of being exposed as a liar and a whore on his blog.
I get that perhaps this woman probably dug her hole deeper by lying, but why even follow up to see if the woman in the picture was her? It seems like she got embarrassed and lied to save face…hardly a cover-up, just trying to avoid an embarrassing situation (like this).
From GoldenI:
“Wait, so the lesson here is that if you try and cover something up, what will happen is that your story will be broadcast all over the Internets, to be read by people who had no idea who you were prior to reading about it?”
Yup. Just like the ‘Tailhook’ Navy scandal of years ago. That situation is required study in any public affairs/public relations course today.
Kleinheider is correct.
Basically, The more you carelessly shovel dirt over the dead bodies the more folks you’ll have showing up with spades to unearth what you’ve hidden.
Quickly defriend ACK unless you want him rummaging through your Facebook photos.
It is scary what AC gets away with?
I totally do not get the point of this, but I’m only halfway paying attention.
Uh… isn’t the real story that her husband is a consultant to the House ans Senate?
AC, if she was dancing for votes then put the proof up, if not, you owe her one whopper of an apology. Being tacky is not news on a political blog. I, for one, think you are being gratuitous.
I agree with those who suggest this is a cheap shot.
I kept waiting for something to come out of this. Never did. I’m not sure why this was even posted…
“Beware those who purchase web space by the gig!”
I recall a certain reluctance to report on racist emails due to some ethical formula of Kleinheider’s. “Civilians” I think, were off limits?
There is nothing of value in this post, except the mean-spirited satisfaction of embarrassing someone. Simply ask the question, “what is the public interest?” But I suppose the fans of this kind of “reporting” are comfortable because the subject(s) happens to be a lobbyist or a dancer. Last time I checked neither was illegal in Tennessee.
Kleinheider,
You tried to portray yourself as Omar Little last month during the Sherri Goforth controversy when you stated “A Man’s Got To Have A Code”. In reality, you are much more like Scott Templeton, a weasel with no “code”.
-Gus Haynes
I recall a certain reluctance to report on racist emails due to some ethical formula of Kleinheider’s. “Civilians” I think, were off limits?
Indeed you do. In that case the woman at issue was a essentially a secretary for state Senator.
This is a registered lobbyist. Are you really asserting that lobbyists are ‘civilians’ in the game up there at the Plaza? Really?
Lobbyists ARE the game up there. It is, in fact, debatable who has more effect on legislation, legislators or lobbyists.
I view this post as entirely consistent with the ‘code.’
If you go up on the Hill to lobby on legislation, on behalf of corporations especially, you are not a civilian. Not to me. Not by any means, not by any stretch of the imagination.
The woman lied to the press, either me or the Tennessean. That’s nothing to you?
Quickly defriend ACK unless you want him rummaging through your Facebook photos.
I didn’t use any Facebook photos for this post. Nor would I.
Who is she married too?
ACK you are an idiot. Who cares? This has nothing to do with her job. If she were dressed like this at a legislative reception it would be news but she was out, after hours living her life outside her job.
If you go up on the Hill to lobby on legislation, on behalf of corporations especially, you are not a civilian. Not to me. Not by any means, not by any stretch of the imagination.
Was she allegedly at this party, dressed like that, in her capacity as a lobbyist? Was she dancing around for votes? If not, if you can’t show that she wasn’t, then what the hell does it matter?
The woman lied to the press, either me or the Tennessean. That’s nothing to you?
Was this your reaction when you found out your parents lied to you about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy? If it has nothing to do with her job as a lobbyist, and you have yet to show that it does, then why the hell does it matter?
This isn’t part of “the code.” This is just downright creepy.
I think ACK is just jealous that she won’t come to his birthday party.
You are just flat wrong on this one ACK, you either have something that ties her to inappropriate activity with legislators or you owe her an apology. Having a risque hobby, even if a lobbyist, just doesn’t deserve this story.
Who cares? This has nothing to do with her job. If she were dressed like this at a legislative reception it would be news but she was out, after hours living her life outside her job.
I agree. The story is not that she dressed that way. I don’t and didn’t care about that.
The story is that she lied and got the photos removed once an inquiry was made.
I could give a crap about the photos. I thought it was interesting and was curious to find out if the woman in the photos were really a lobbyist but I had no intention of posting the photo — until she lied.
She was embarrassed. Nine out out of tem people (my own experience) will lie rather than tell the truth if it avoids them embarrassment.
She’s not a legislator. She’s a lobbyist. She’s entitled to a life doing whatever she pleases - and dancing in what ever clothing she pleases. End of story, you should apologize, ACK (IMHO) And we seriously hope you’ve never fudged anything in your life, because its open season now from some folks, my guesstimation (not me, though, I don’t give a poop) You’re a bright fella with a great blog, but you jumped the shark on this one, buddy …
For the record - Mr. Stanley also is entitled to a life. He just isn’t entitled to be holier than thou in his public life, while being considerably less so in his private. If he’d simply said, you know - ‘i’m a ho, but this legislation is bad’ then that would have worked for me. But he passed judgment publicly about others - and you know the one about glass houses and the rolling stones …
Put me down as a big fan of Mrs. Cox.
You rock Rose!
This just makes you look like a bully. What, exactly, is the point? Don’t lie to ACK?
The point is don’t lie to the media sure, but not me specifically. I don’t know that she did lie to me.
The point is that it is a case study in crisis management. Particularly instructive in light of what is going on with Paul Stanley.
The story is that she lied and got the photos removed once an inquiry was made.
I de-tag or delete photos of myself on Facebook if I don’t like how I look at them or if they wouldn’t be appropriate for future employers to see. Is that dishonest?
Again, what is the point of this story other than how you’re pissed off that she lied to you?
The point is that it is a case study in crisis management. Particularly instructive in light of what is going on with Paul Stanley.
That point speaks for itself! Couldn’t you have just said that rather than drag this all up?
This is true
Nixion was not told that Liddy and the Plumbers were going to break into the watergate office.
But Nixion was loyal to his freinds and tried to cover it up to protect them…. and it cost him everything.
If he had done the right thing he would have finished his 2nd term.
Post Politics is becoming the “TMZ” of the Tennessee political scene. There’s no substance to this post, but I bet it’s driving some traffic to the blog!
everyone is getting lost in the details on this one. i think ac’s point is that this is an individual who has a major effect on legislation and feels she can simply lie to the press so she doesnt look so bad when something she may or may not have done is put out in public. the bottom line is, yes, lobbyists are very public figures. there is a reason the state makes them register. It has nothing to do with the pics, they just happen to be the vessel in which this message was delivered.
ACK, what has Ron Ramsey put you up to now?
Again, what is the point of this story other than how you’re pissed off that she lied to you?
Again, we don’t know that she lied to me. And I wouldn’t care if she had personally. It wouldn’t hurt my feelings.
But I don’t think we should be setting a precedent that it is okay for lobbyists to lie to media (the Tennessean or, yes, me). Do you?
This looks like the kind of party where you’d forget you were ever there.
She lied to the press about something you should not have been investigating in the first place, which frankly is an almost noble form of dishonesty. What public good were you serving by ascertaining whether it was her in the photos or not? Why do any of us need to know this? Does she lobby against pornography, or in favor of some other “family value” that makes her fair game to be exposed as a hypocrite? You’re setting her up as a Mark Sanford or a Paul Stanley, but so far I fail to see the connection between these photographs and her work on the Hill.
Lying is wrong. So was your investigation. I think everyone can understand why she tried to cover it up. She is a lobbyist in an extremely conservative state, and those photos could damage her career. The people who would condemn her would be wrong for doing it, but that’s very little consolation after you’ve lost your job. We do not live in a world where a professional woman can publicly stand behind those photographs without serious repercussions. So I ask again: What were your intentions in investigating them in the first place? I think when you honestly answer that question you’ll know exactly why she lied.
But I don’t think we should be setting a precedent that it is okay for lobbyists to lie to media (the Tennessean or, yes, me). Do you?
I would have a problem with it if she were lying about something in her capacity as a lobbyist, yes. But this isn’t, and you have shown absolutely no proof that it is. I think that what people do in their private lives like this is none of my business, you apparently don’t feel that way. Honestly, if it were me, I’d probably want the pictures taken down regardless of whether it was me in them or not.
Your only real purpose in doing this is to smear a woman who may have acted wrongly but had no affect on anyone else. And it’s creepy.
I love it! All we need to know is whether she has the tattoo or not. And yes it is a big deal when you run around acting like a harlot with Ted Kennedy. Mary Littleton lost her job as a lobbyist for being in a relationship with Briley. Imagine if she had put on a burlesque show.
Good work pointing out the hypocrisy of the Hill.
Glad to know you consider our FB friend status sacred.
Glad to know lying to the press doesn’t go unchecked.
I don’t know how to feel about your coverage of Gibbons considering his marginal support and small amount of money. On one hand, I am much more likely to finish the race; therefore, I could pretend to be offended.
On the other, if he stays in the race, his 5-10% of the GOP vote from “the police staters” are people who would likely never vote for me and would flee to one of my other three opponents.
So, perhaps, I should encourage you to continue providing him the false hope of relevancy to this campaign.
Here’s another question–why would someone have sent you this email in the first place, if not to smear her, perhaps for the purpose of diverting attention from the Stanley story? If so, then you did the dirty work and it succeeded, congratulations.
So does this mean I can anonymously send you a smear email about someone else and you’ll do my dirty work?
Here’s another question–why would someone have sent you this email in the first place, if not to smear her, perhaps for the purpose of diverting attention from the Stanley story?
If I ignored every email that came from someone I thought had an agenda or an ulterior motive, there would be no reason to check it.
Ack’s point is more about how journalism in the digital age is a constantly changeable thing. But just because the record can change doesn’t mean its been wiped clean.
If I ignored every email that came from someone I thought had an agenda or an ulterior motive, there would be no reason to check it.
Well then, you still did their dirty work. Job well done.
I know you’ve seen my Halloween pictures. You commented on one of them. Are you going to smear me next? I’m not exactly a “civilian” either.
Oh well, Stanley resigned anyway.
So, whoops, whoever was trying to divert attention from that story failed. And this whole exercise is now all much ado about nothing.
This is silly. There was no crime and no cover-up. She says she lied to The Tennessean. At this point, there’s no reason to believe she lied to you. Her lie to The Tennessean only covered up that it wasn’t her. Not wanting to be asked if the girl in the skimpy outfit is you is not a crime.
The coverup is not always worse than the crime … especially when there’s … no crime?
Not really sure what you’re after here..
I really don’t care if she is or isn’t. This had nothing to do with her regular job as a lobbyist (and how the hell did you put me in the position of defending a LOBBYIST???) and I don’t care if she was doing a burlesque thing on the side.
I don’t know what you thought you were achieving with this, but you may have bitten off far more than you can chew or swallow.
This is just nutty. ACK is just nutty for writing this. Goldnl is right… he became a pawn to whomever sent him the email. No matter if she lied or didn’t lie, this is hardly newsworthy.
If she told The Tennessean that it was indeed her in the pictures, she probably knew they would be more likely to remove them. Had she just asked them to remove them because she happened to look like someone in the pictures, then they most likely would’ve laughed at her. And, perhaps, ACK, maybe the Tennessean lied to YOU when they said they were taken down at the request of a person in the pictures. Maybe she never lied to them at all, and they just didn’t want to look questionable to some blogger who was trying to find the next watergate over some party pictures in their social pages.
I think the real lesson here is that not all lies are damnable sins. ACK, surely you’ve told a lie or two in your lifetime so that you reaped a benefit or two. I’m sure you have probably told a girl that you didn’t live in your moms basement so that you could get laid. Right?
ACK, surely you’ve told a lie or two in your lifetime so that you reaped a benefit or two. I’m sure you have probably told a girl that you didn’t live in your moms basement so that you could get laid. Right?
I have indeed told lies in my day. But for the record, I never received any complaints about the ambiance or decor of my mother’s basement from the girl’s I bedded there.
Uh, what’s that sound? Oh its the NashvillePost.com execs reading ACK’s post and saying “Holy Shit! This kid has no filter! Who posts this to a blog as some sort of morality story?”
Well the answer to that question, NashvillePost.com execs is your pal, AC. Now he has hung some lady out to dry, with ZERO journalistic reason to, and oh, that’s right, he sat on a story that made WORLDWIDE headlines about racist emails…what do all these facts add up to?
At the very least, you have compromised any modicum of integrity you had. At the most you have ruined someone’s life (at least for now and as long as your godforsaken website is available by a google search) and made NashvillePost.com (a legitimate journalistic establishment) look pretty bad due to your own ill-advised stunt post….sounds like a full day for you, buddy.
I honestly did not think it possible for you to stoop lower than you already had in recent weeks… But hey, let me be the first to admit that I was wrong about that.
The existence of the tat or not on the lobbyist WOULD cinch it.
I’m don’t like anyone deciding what I get to know.
What’s the world coming to? Next thing you know, GoldnI will be taking pole dance lessons.
ACK, trying to justify this vanity exercise is almost as bad as the initial inquiry. We’ve had serious disagreements before, you and I, but I wouldn’t have ever described you as unfair. Listen to what 90% of your friends and readers here are saying.
Enough is enough. There is real news out there.
Next thing you know, GoldnI will be taking pole dance lessons.
Hey, hey. There’s no reason to threaten everyone.
I’m not 100% comfortable with this but then I’m very much in the “everyone’s private life should be left alone regardless” camp. However, I think people are forgetting something here: ACK did not bring private photos into public view. He did republish public photos that had been removed from another site under questionable circumstances. However, the photos were already in the public domain so to speak.
The photos themselves are also an integral part of the story. Q: What was he or the Tennessean being lied to over? A: The photos.
So while I’m not exactly comfortable with the photos being republished and wouldn’t have done it myself, I do think it is a fair, if harsh, call since they were already in public view. That said, I think the photos are distracting from the story –that of the lie– and in that regard they take away rather than add to the story. My first reaction was also to think this is wrong and that’s another distraction to the point (lying) that ACK is trying to drive home with this.
Man this screams of petty, woman did me wrong so I’m going to ruin her hackery. Pathetic.
AC- Clearly you are seeing there is an uproar. We are not all crazy, and I would say almost everyone agrees this was bullshit.
You are really going to stand by this? You are better than this, AC. Fix this.
Wow. Thanks for the pointless, sensationalism. She probably lied because she knew this would be the outcome of it and wanted to save us all some wasted time reading this article.
So she’s not a public figure, elected official, et al. Malice anyone? Won’t be so funny when Mom calls Klein up from the basement to sign for receipt of that libel suit.
A journalist investigated the pictures with no intention of writing a story and wouldn’t have if she hadn’t lied but you aren’t sure if she lied.
There’s nothing wrong with the pictures. But guys obviously keep harassing her about the photos, trying to befriend her on facebook with the intention of asking her about or learning more about the photos. She tells these “friends” who aren’t really a friends a maybe lie about the photos and then all of a sudden, because she wanted to avoid talking to guys on the internet, and because she happens to have a job working with politicians, all of a sudden she is a story on a politics blog.
I’m sorry but it is perfectly OK to lie to men who contact you asking about sexy photos. I mean, who would fault her for lying if Paul Stanley facebooked her and asked about the photos?
This is messed up and creepy on several levels. On the bright side, Kotz should be happy. The Scene is no longer the worst rag in town. I sure didn’t expect this from SouthComm.
Don’t lie. That’s the point here.
This was completely uncalled-for. I didn’t need to know about this, nor do I have any reason to care, except to the extent that I read this website and i don’t want to see you get shit-canned for doing something so utterly bone-headed.
I am friends with you on Facebook, ACK. Can I expect to become a future target of one of your investigations because of what I choose to do in my private time? I am not a public figure and neither is this woman. Neither, for that matter, are you.
You owe this woman an apology. This post should be taken down. And if you want to retain my trust and goodwill, don’t ever cross this line again.
I am friends with you on Facebook, ACK. Can I expect to become a future target of one of your investigations because of what I choose to do in my private time? I am not a public figure and neither is this woman. Neither, for that matter, are you.
Facebook was merely how I got in touch with the woman. She did not answer via email. I did not use any pictures from there. Facebook pages are off the record. I have never used information from Facebook in a post without permission.
I completely agree with auto.
I thought you did a nice job with this, AC. It’s a fun, harmless read and it doesn’t really hurt anyone in the end. It’s just an amusing story on the goofy social gymanistics of the political class. And if it was really so bad, all these people bagging on you wouldn’t have taken the time to read the entire story.
ACK, don’t skirt around the point. This is serious. I love this website and when I talk to skeptical people with money who might be persuaded to invest in independent media, I point to you as an example of what blogging is good for. At the very least, this is not good for blogging.
My point is that this is about trust. I’ve worked on campaigns, I’ve even run a campaign, but I have a life outside of politics which is not open for public inspection.
There are certainly things I could do or say which would be fair game for any journalist, but having fun at a burlesque show is not one of them. That’s private. It’s completely unconnected to my politics. Below a certain level, people are entitled to privacy. I think lobbyists who are not having sex with their contacts are entitled to that basic level of privacy, and I am hardly a fan of lobbyists.
On the most personal level, I could be a source for you one day. Things like this give me second thoughts, period. I support you and I want to see you succeed, and that’s why this post really disappoints me.
What am I missing here? Kleinheider gets a possible tip about a person deeply involved in politics (probably, although I haven’t confirmed this, to the point of having registered the depth of her involvement publicly). He follows up on the tip directly with the person involved and discovers that she lied to either him or another media outlet in an attempt to cover up something of questionable necessity (i.e., no crime) in the first place. And he uses it as an illustration of an apparent trend (an apparently very defensible one) in political attitudes. The clear point being that a politico turned a non-story into a story by attempting a cover-up, however misguided.
What’s the big deal?
I can’t wait to watch her husband kick you ass AC!
I wouldn’t be walking the halls of the capitol anytime soon.
Maybe it’s me that’s missing something. Can you explain to me what the “tip” is that makes this newsworthy?
Amen Paul… and Freddie, I’m sorry you can’t understand the senseless use of this woman in AC’s little cautionary tail.
Cox husband is a former marine and is crazier than the party she was at. HE IS GOING TO BEAT YOUR BLOG!
Freddie, you’re a smart guy, but really? You don’t see how AC and his Parable aren’t really a reason to post this shit and propagate it? That’s cool. Just like Stanley Resignation Watch, we now get “How Long before Southcomm Makes AC Apologize/Pull Down Post/ Get Muzzled like WKRN did”
Freddie, ACK is talented. Talented enough to have gotten the point across without the personal details. Its a disturbing trend here.
I guess I fall closer to where Aunt B. is coming from than most of the detractors here. There are a lot of issues here that make this worthy of reporting. So we can either be distracted by the more tabloid elements (which, if Cox is not the person in the photo, are literally just distraction); or we can focus on the actual questions both B. and Kleinheider raise, which made an interesting read to me.
Seriously, this is enough to make me think that the readers of Post Politics are either: a) a bunch of ashamed burlesque dancers or, b) a bunch of burlesque haters worried they might be look-a-likes.
Hard to hide that Tat ? A.C.K. needs to perform an inspection, and come back with his findings.
Which, honestly, is an interesting implicit point of all this: whatever right to privacy we might ever have had, privacy itself is an illusion in the Information Age.
Freddie, those of us not in the “circle”, (when you get booted out, btw, it makes you re-think what other outsiders have been saying…) have been loudly and clearly trying to tell ACK something:
We don’t want this. We find it pretty damn exploitative and borderline cruel. If there was a point to made about decisions made by the Tennessean, there was a way to do so without resorting to Springer like tactics.
A lot of people came through here and left good reasons for their anger, instead of just tossing off something like “stay classy, Adam.” The fact that they did so, and to not have him at least acknowledge that he may have over-reached is infuriating.
Most of this thread seems to be libs taking out their anger on ACK because he’s one of the few who treats Ds and Rs the same. You see the same raw emotion from the left when anything about Trent Seibert is posted here. He was an equal opportunity hitman and the Capitol Hill Democrats hated him for it. If TN Democrats would stop obsessing over blogs and start learning how to win races they might actually pick up a seat.
Trollfail
Chris Wage proves my point.
the most interesting angle here is that the tennessean alters its online content unannounced and w/ no notation based on the following criteria: “it’s all in the asking.” Long live Google Cache!
I’ve deliberately laid back today watching the comments and trying to formulate my own opinion. Here’s where I’ve landed: ACK is completely in the right and you haters are wrong. We’re talking about the Tennessee Legislature — an undisputedly sleazy culture where lawmakers (both Democrats and Republicans) swap everything from information to spit. The fact that a well-known member of the lobbying corps is a burlesque dancer by night — and lies about it — is relevant. If she worked at Kroger or Mapco, would it matter? Of course not. But she works in the most ethically and sexually challenged environment in the state. And she is part of the public trust (or in Tennessee’s case, distrust) that formulates policies and laws that affect all our lives. Here’s a question: If Phil Williams had done this story, would you feel the same way? I think not …
I suggest you forward this to Phil Williams and see if he wants to break this story, post haste
I still don’t see the point of posting it, but if anything remotely connected to politics is fair game on the blog, then that’s the way it’ll be, and that’ll be your rep. None of the initial stuff posted is exactly news. It’s been around awhile.
Like it or not,lobbyists are increasingly identified w/ elected officials in the public’s mind. Daschle, Naifeh, Gramm, Gingrich, etc were or are married to lobbyists. The old rules of journalism are being rewritten every day in the online era. There’s nothing wrong w/ this story. It’s important to keep perspective - 125 years ago journalists gleefully wrote about “Ma ma where’s my pa?” - a jingle about a defenseless child - and in 1828 journalists openly called Rachel Jackson a whore. We live in a relatively sanitized media world.
Relevance is a debatable thing sometimes.
The Tennessean posts these pics for a month and no one cares. PostPolitics posts them for a few hours and people are going crazy. Where is the our rage against the Tennessean?
Was Cox at the Statesman’s Dinner?
Here’s one of my other favorite things about the revelation of this post (note I didn’t call it a “story”): the implication that there must be a night and day difference between public/official and private/unofficial lives. Why do we create this almost necessarily artificial construct where people in suits (or pantsuits) are the only ones allowed to conduct official business, and they must never be allowed to be perceived to be having fun, cutting loose, etc. for fear of TMZ-style communal bloodletting?
I mean, if we could operate such that a lobbyist or, heaven forfend, an elected official could actually be a burlesque dancer without fear of castigation or humiliation–i.e., without creating a secret life–I suspect we’d be much more likely to stay on the (slippery?) slope of decency than hurtle off the Stanleyan cliff perpetually.
This story is interesting because it could not have happened with out facebook, google cache, blogs, online lobbyist registry, and photos posted online. This is a perfect example of how “New Media” has change the way the news is reported… more than that it have changed what news is. One could teach a class on this case study.
not the real Ben - good point!
I guess if you consider ACK a member of the media, which I do, than lieing to him is a bad thing for a lobbiest to do. Cox should have just said… yes it was me and that was not the best thing to have done. Then there would have been no story.
ACK - Good work on this. You got a lead, checked it out, something was wield, and you caught a lobbyist in a lie.
This is what Phil Williams does all the time.
Freddie: The distinguishing characteristic here is sex. It would be one thing if the woman spent her nighttime hours flying model airplanes or doing basket weaving or practicing nuclear physics. But here is a burlesque dancer working in the midst of the Briley-Miller-Stanley-et al culture. Let’s be honest: The Legislature has got an institutional problem as it relates to sex. Lobbyists (and apparently staff and interns) are part of the problem. This stuff is news, pure and simple. Kudos to ACK for getting the tip and recognizing the news value.
Harrison is right on. So if we find out that this Rose Cox chick is sleeping with a married Legislator, will this be a story then? The answer is yes and I think it is a story now.
again good work Post Politics.
Has anyone heard if Stanley had a relationship with this chick? Is this a rumor that anyone else has heard?
Uh, I don’t think you have to be any kind of dancer to do that, not that Ben.
This post is a giant Rorschach blot. I find myself agreeing with Freddie O’Connell and Aunt B…
… and therefore very thankful that I am about to leave for South Jersey tomorrow. Guess I need that vacation.
Mack, I was with you on the Stanley thing but I see this differently… big party with photos being taken, nothing illegal, the woman in question, whoever she is, is not trying to hide anything… there’s nothing really to hide or be ashamed of… or am I missing something?
Btw: Let me be clear … Just because I don’t want burlesque dancers shaping public policy and state law doesn’t mean that I can’t appreciate a tasseled boobie when I see one. Good for young Rosie. She’s clearly the Betty Page of the lobbying corps. Which, while terribly inappropriate in most sectors of American work life, probably is seen as a compliment in that wacky upside-down world that we call the Legislature.
Do you have the permission from the Tennessean to post those pics? Just because a photo is on the internet does not mean it is public domain. Heather Byrd and/or the Tennessean own those images, no? Perhaps ACK is breaking the law here?
Martin, yes, I think you are. Ack, early on in his post, writes, “I must admit it was intriguing”.
Really? I think he found it titillating, possibly, but intriguing? Its about substance, at least for me.
Where the hell are the feminists? If a male lobbyist posed for a beefcake photo at a private party, would it be something that we “need to know”? Isn’t the fact that its being suggested here that her conduct is further stoking the sexual fires of our State Legislature more than a little troubling? Damn, the hypocrisy. Only a couple of comments in here have had trouble with the whole burlesque thing…the rest of us feel that it was ACK being manipulated, and the more I think about it, I think someone knew that ACK has, of late, shown a fondness for holier than thou rhetoric.
I don’t care that she was performing as a burlesque dancer. I care that she crafted an elaborate scheme to have the pictures taken down.
If she lied to a journalist about something as harmless as a few pictures, what would she tell a legislator to get him or her to see things her way?
Oh great. Thanks ACK. I’m actually feeling some sympathy for a lobbyist. I feel dirty.
AC, I dunno if the coverup is always worse than the crime. I am thinking of a US Senator who drove his car off a bridge and plunged it into really deep water, resulting in the death of a passenger. He got a suspended sentence. But for the most part you are right, like the Beatles sang in Helter Skelter: you may be a lover but you ain’t no dancer. This applies to cheating politicians and fibbing lobbyists. If that might have happened. I am not saying it did of course. I have to go. There is a whole bunch of toothpaste outside of the tube here and I have to stuff it back in. JC
PS: I was also in the Marines. I got your back! mer
I thought he was going to say she was sleeping with Stanley when I started reading it. I wouldnt have posted this story though. I guess its just part of the nitpicking culture that we have today.
Good luck trying to take down all the special interests.
The feminists unilaterally gave up their credibility during Chappaquiddick and Monica so they’re irrelevant. A good analogy is the NAACP in West VA when they endorsed Byrd. It’s about party affiliation, not ideology. Since the would-be fems don’t know if Ms. Cox is an ally of the Ds or the Rs, they are silent.
When someone starts out with “the feminists” it typically indicates that they don’t know the first thing about feminism or the feminist movement. As to Senator Byrd, he apologized and has made making up for the evil of his affiliation a lifelong goal. He put his money where his mouth was and has received forgiveness for his past.
And Monica? ROFLMAO. A consensual affair isn’t something “the feminists” and their nefarious, but elite, conservative-white-male-neutering swat team of man-hating vigilantes and “Pink Pistol” drop-outs usually gets involved in. I suppose you could make a request but they usually concern themselves with things that affect the lives of either man-hating, baby-killing, godless (or heretical) women as a group or man-hating, baby-incapable, abominations-to-God™ lesbians. They appear to only unleash these hellhounds (aka: “hellbitches”) of anti-masculinity when the issue affects one or more groups of man-haters and/or concerns the equality of man-haters with men (perish the thought, I know!). Radicals that they are, “the feminists” and their anti-American (possibly Muslim) sympathizers want nothing more than to destroy the epitome of Americaness — the white male conservative and his subservient wife and offspring — by enforcing Title IX and their belief that women are more than property, deserving of equality even! Alas, unless it relates to protecting women from social harms that impact women as a whole or dismantling the proper God-ordained order of male supremacy they just don’t seem to care!
I’d like to be kinder to them, but from my observations I think it’s pretty clear that the whole anti-testicle movement and its eunuch allies are simply against tools. So ask yourself — are you a tool or not?
Mack-it was not a private party. When you post sugestive pics of your self online don’t complain when people call you on it.
Kleinheider pizzes me off mucho, mucho times. But I gotta stand with him on this one in this respect:
Lobbyists are NOT civilians!!
(Unfortunately) for the unelected power they wield in our modern American government, lobbyists are very much… VERY MUCH ‘Public Figures’ and are open to the same scrutiny as our duly elected officials!
From the time a lobbyist opens his/her eyes in the morning to the time they go to sleep (or pass out in some drunken, PAC sponsored bacchanal), their lives are an open book and their actions are fit fodder for our media.
Don’t like it? Then don’t become a corruptor of our elected American government!! (Oops! That last line should read: ‘Don’t become a lobbyist!!)
One was a link to a photo in this collection of Heather Byrd photos from the birthday party of Manuel, the “king of country couture.”
Its been my experience that birthday parties are usually private functions.
I’ve been quite clear where i stand, as have others. I’m looking forward to reading the post that calls out those that suggested that this woman, because she may have dressed in burlesque style clothing, is now responsible for the highly charged sexual environment on the Hill. Certainly, if she dressed like that, she would use her wily feminine ways to corrupt otherwise good family men, right? Right?
***crickets***
I’m done here.
It was a good post Adam. Her reaction to your initial inquiry was informative to her character. She did lie to either you or the Tennessean, a newspaper that seems very compliant to requests of deleting photos. Why she didn’t admit it was her and ask what the big deal was all about is beyond me but it was the lie that caused all this. If I’m in the market for a lobbyist this is a character flaw I would want to know about.
[...] Nothing is over.Yesterday, Kleinheider ran a thinly veiled hit piece on a little-known Tennessee lobbyist. He caught unholy Hell for it in the comments, with many [...]
The reporter who follows every lead and reports every story is like the cop who tickets everyone who spits on the sidewalk. It might suit the fascists among us who consider themselves above reproach and feel best only when they feel superior, but the truth is we are all guilty of something. All it takes to find our guilt is placing our lives under a strong enough microscope, and the press often has more power in that capacity than the police do.
In a court of law, we have a right against self-incrimination. Judging from some of the opinions expressed here, no such right exists in the press. If a reporter calls and asks us questions about something we might not want to be made generally known for whatever reason, evidently we are duty bound to give them nothing but the truth. I disagree, especially when the questions the reporter is asking are about something which is none of his damn business. Kleinheider has yet to demonstrate how these burlesque performances have any relationship at all to her political career, and therefore this story is nothing but a meaningless smear.
Kleinheider is just a guy with a blog. Being a member of the press does not place everyone he speaks to under oath. He does not hold the special authority of a judge, even though that’s what he’s set himself up as in this situation. If someone lies to him and he catches them in the lie, of course he can present that in his story for public censure as he has done here, but the lie in and of itself is no crime. She has done no wrong as far as Kleinheider has demonstrated.
Just like police officers are given a limited amount of discretion to decide when it truly serves the public good to limit our freedoms, reporters should also exercise discernment by weighing the possible harm versus the possible good that may come from publishing their stories. We can’t foresee every consequence, but even a person of below average intelligence could see that this story could be harmful to the lobbyist, and Kleinheider hasn’t shown what terrible public harm he’s preventing by publishing it. This is simple ethics. Perhaps The Tennessean removed the photographs on request precisely because they realized they were potentially harmful to an individual and outside the scope of newsworthy reporting. Unfortunately, Kleinheider did not exercise this same discretion. Frankly, I no longer trust him on a personal level.
Amber Adams wrote:
“Perhaps The Tennessean removed the photographs on request precisely because they realized they were potentially harmful to an individual and outside the scope of newsworthy reporting.”
Amber Adams, are you too a lobbyist?
Again I respond (for Amber Adams and others who think lobbyists have a special place in our elected government):
Lobbyists are NOT civilians!!
(Unfortunately) for the unelected power they wield in our modern American government, lobbyists are very much… VERY MUCH ‘Public Figures’ and are open to the same scrutiny as our duly elected officials!
From the time a lobbyist opens his/her eyes in the morning to the time they go to sleep (or pass out in some drunken, PAC sponsored bacchanal), their lives are an open book and their actions are fit fodder for our media.
Don’t like it? Then don’t become a corruptor of our elected American government!! (Oops! That last line should read: ‘Don’t become a lobbyist!!)
Just my two cents, ACK this is tasteless and you should apologize to her. You could have made your “point” about the cover up being worse than the lie with any number of hypotheticals. By using this example you have probably caused a lot of unneeded grief for this woman. The fact that she is a lobbyist by day has no bearing on whether she deserves to have some aspect of her personal life magnified for everyone else to see (I say magnified and not exposed, because they were already exposed on the Tennessean’s website, but nobody would have cared about that by itself. But your story has magnified this now to the point of probably causing embarrasment to her).
Lying to the media about a professional topic - a conflict of interest, a past or current sexual relationship with a related party (legislator, etc.), an unknown business interest, etc. - might call for this type of treatment, but having party pics taken off a website to avoid some embarrassment? No way.
Do the right thing. Apologize and take the post down.
The only reason this post is on here is because this woman is in your “circle” (i.e. you work in proximity to each other) and you have an outlet with which to share it. If the same happened to me and I got some racy pics of a co-worker or someone in my industry, I would probably hoot and holler for a few minutes, maybe show it to someone else and say “Can you believe he/she did this?”, and that would be the end of it. In this case you’ve used your professional outlet to bring grief and embarrassment to someone’s personal life simply because you can, under the cover of some higher purpose of not lying to the media.
FYI for anyone that thinks I have some dog in this hunt, I work in the financial area of a local music company. I don’t have any personal connection to any lobbyists or legislators save for the years I spent as a Senate Page when I was in high school. You all seem to know each other, and I have no idea who any of you are.
[...] The only reason this post is on here is because this… The Collective [...]
Jim -
I agree with you that lobbyists are not civilians. In fact, I disagreed with Kleinheider’s classification of a certain racist Senate staffer as a “civilian” and considered her wrong-doing worth reporting because it spoke to a political issue (racism) taking place inside the very walls of our Legislature, therefore making my definition of a politico broader than his own. I also agree with you that lobbyists should be held to the same standard of conduct as politicians. I apparently disagree with you that Rose Cox has done anything here that warrants public scrutiny, however. As I pointed out in a previous comment, if she were attempting to legislate morality for the rest of us, maybe I’d find it interesting that she wasn’t holding herself to the same standard of moral conduct. If she was performing a burlesque dance for an audience of Senators in exchange for political favors, perhaps I would find it interesting. As it stands, she has nothing to be ashamed of, and her participation in a burlesque show just isn’t newsworthy information. Kleinheider publishing this story smells suspiciously of a witch hunt for no other purpose than to smear the woman’s reputation, for something that violates his personal moral code but has no public interest at all.
Kleinheider publishing this story smells suspiciously of a witch hunt for no other purpose than to smear the woman’s reputation, for something that violates his personal moral code but has no public interest at all.
The pictures don’t offend my moral code. In fact, in the post, I said the pictures weren’t a big deal. The fact that they weren’t a big deal, and still aren’t, is sorta the point of the post.
If the pictures weren’t a “big deal” Kleinheider, WHY WERE YOU INVESTIGATING THEM? What was the point in even following up on the tip if you believed they were inconsequential? Why was it at all important to you that something so insignificant and not newsworthy was removed from the Tennessean website? Why did you care that she might have lied about something so trivial to save herself embarrassment?
Are you really so naive to believe that pictures of a woman in a burlesque show would not have consequences for her professionally and/or personally if they were made public? Please, tell me what public good you have achieved with this blog post beyond teaching all of us that “thou shalt not fib to Kleinheider about your personal life because if you do he will publicly humiliate you.”
“that she might have lied about something so trivial ”
Ahhh. I remember when a lie was a lie and there was no triviality about it.
Frankly I think Kleinheider has done his job and done it well.
I think lobbyists are public figures.
I think it is illustrative of the sociocultural divide that a lobbyist can exert such control over the press. Today it’s pictures, tomorrow it’s statistics about this or that issue which would inform the public.
Wow, Rose Cox must hate you.
Nice job, though. That’s definitely her in those pics.
Wow, Kleinheider is a nonsensical bully. No purpose was served by his blowing up party photos and attempting to manufacture an issue… other than his own self-aggrandizement.
Factor this into everything Kleinheider writes: He’s a self-promoter, he doesn’t report but instead manufactures, so he can’t be trusted.
Are you really so naive to believe that pictures of a woman in a burlesque show would not have consequences for her professionally and/or personally if they were made public?
I think an important point to make is that I didn’t make the photos public originally. Heather Byrd did.
I remade them public after Ms. Cox had them removed from the Tennessean website — even though she maintains the photos were not of her.
So, you didn’t make the mistake of publicizing the photographs out of ignorance, you *knew* she wanted to keep them private, and then publicized them.
That only makes you more of a jackass, Kleinheider.
[...] News from Kleinheider: Lobbyists are liars edition. Kleinheider takes on lobbyist who may or may not be the same burlesque dancer he saw pictured on [...]
Will the Tennessean actually pull images from their site if someone calls and simply claims to be in a picture?…without any verification of that fact? That would be an interesting precedent.
Paul Chenoweth writes
July 29th, 2009 5:05 pm
Will the Tennessean actually pull images from their site if someone calls and simply claims to be in a picture?…without any verification of that fact? That would be an interesting precedent.
I’m gonna call the Tennessean and tell’ em I’m The Obamassiah and I don’t want ‘em to publish my pictures anymore.
I don’t want to stir this up, but I didn’t have a chance before tonight to read through all these comments, and I want to say that some folks above expressed themselves quite well here, made very good points, and I feel Amber Adams above expressed herself (or himself) exceptionally well.
My thoughts run parallel for the most part to Adams’s comments, especially as those comments reflect some training I’ve had and some standards I have been bound to.
Yes, some or most lobbyists would be designated as public figures by courts, though that is NOT a given. But even with public figures, there can be court-ruled invasion of privacy, aside from libel, though such cases are more difficult for public figures to win — but not impossible.
Even if such plaintiffs don’t or can’t win in court, if they try, it’s gonna cost you/your bosses!
More important, though, if you’re going to be a journalist, you must have a code and some sense of a reputation you care to foster and protect.
Kleinheider,
“Truth is an absolute defense against libel”
A Journalist is “to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable.”
In this case… this situation… any libel or defamation suit against you would fail.