Kevin Spacey admitted during a "tearful interview" with Piers Morgan he was "a bit handsy and didn't ask for consent" re his recent aquittal for sexual abuse of men while working in England. Spacey was only tearful because he was relieved he wouldn't become someones bum bandit in prison! He should be behind bars grrrr.
I have a great deal of respect for true journalists. That's why I'm here. I find that you're one of the few good ones left. I have a stack of biographies about the likes of Bob Woodward, Tom Brokaw, Mike Wallace (not a comprehensive list), because a solid journalist is of keen interest to me. I think it's probably in line with my underlying thirst for authenticity. Ethics being at the center of it all. Milne was setting you up for a "gotcha" moment on his podcast. That, along with click-bait headlines, are the most despicable things happening in "journalism" today. You did good, stayed true to yourself. Exhibited ethics. Made me glad to be a Worm and now I'm even more excited for my sticker to arrive.
To me, it seemed cagey, like he wanted to trap you, with ‘dick swingy’ elements thrown in - like I was reading between the lines a lot and thinking about the context of your work overseas and how that’s probably not always celebrated by your NZ peers for various reasons. I could practically hear him saying “you think you’re some big shot living in LA, hanging out with celebs etc etc”. It would have been so much more graceful if he had just responded to your first reply with thanks and moved on. If I was being generous, I’d say maybe he was just fucking up the framing and being impulsive but he’s a journalist so he’s supposed to be great at words. I’m rambling now. God you do have to deal with some people David!
A bit of tall poppy syndrome maybe? Try to take David down and make him look a bit off bc of this miniscule thing. Rather than support his genuine desire to tell news in a straightforward way.
Eewwwww, that's super gross. This is something we've had to do big community awareness on in the trans community, and continue to do. So many unsuspecting trans folks agree to interviews or panels and then that footage is used in anti-trans films/segments or it's just a pile-on. Awful behaviour.
Someone I knew agreed to be on a Newshub segment and while she was treated decently by Newshub, they then put it on FB and the comment section (which they didn't moderate) was absolutely disgusting. I complained to Newshub about it and they just kinda shrugged it off.
Woah, that’s fucked up. I’d hope for better from Newsroom though they do publish their fair share of crap takes. Another to add to my ‘be wary of’ list :(
There are still some great journos out there, but the platforms they have to operate on, and this gotcha, clickbaity style they all have to contend with.
And I really hate that mainstream media in NZ seems to feel like it has to take such a grotesquely tepid tone on Gaza.
I do not think I will be able stomach watching Jack Tame ever again after the twin Israeli ambassador and Palestinian Authority interviews. He hounded and hounded the Palestinian guy about the original Hamas charter, but the guy is from an organisation diametrically opposed to Hamas! And yet he did not ask a single question of the Israeli guy about the genocidal rhetoric espoused by members of the government he does represent!
One of the co-editors at Newsroom is married to Juliet Moses, one of the most high profile zionists in the country - and they published an article on her accusing a room full of survivors of the Chch terror attack of being the real terrorist supporters at the counter-terrorism hui as though she was the real victim because people responded "Free Palestine" and walked out: https://newsroom.co.nz/2021/06/15/behind-tensions-at-the-terror-hui/ (note that the actual comments Moses made that prompted the walkout the article is about are not quoted, despite that presumably being incredibly important context).
They're never going to be able to provide truly fair coverage on Gaza with that direction being set from the top.
Right, so this is Mark Jennings? Who both David and I have worked with. NZ is small, everyone has connections to someone else, it is a slippery slope to make judgements on people based on who they are related to, especially in NZ. There is only one bylined article by Juliet on the Newsroom website that I can see.
I am far, far more concerned about RNZ continually having Juliet and the Zionist lobby on what is essentially our state broadcaster.
And the subpar journalistic practice of our other state broadcaster TVNZ when it comes to our only current affairs programming.
That article is pretty sick though. The rise of Islamophobia has been an certainly been an insidious and creeping campaign. I'm just not comfortable with going towards a reds under the bed type mentality on the issue
Where do we go to now for current affairs in NZ? Sunday with Miriama Kamo had some great stories, not like the other one late evening which featured American murder stories! We want less America in our lives not more!!
One thing we don’t talk about is how hard it is to pay the rent without ads. I don’t do any ads and it’s a nightmare - it’s impossible to fund the things I want to fund without advertising. Very often the people who criticise those who rarely use ads and are careful with who they partner with are the same people who never pay for a subscription or give koha. You can’t have it both ways - if you won’t support creators trying to create ethically then you have to recognise you’re part of the system. I’ve turned down the same ad offers you have - including a huge contract for weight loss that would have paid me enough to live for half a year. I’ve turned down pharmaceutical companies and medical tech companies and it’s actually hard to do because you need money. I hope people will recognise how hard it is to 1) decline money when you need money and 2) ethically run ads. Because even when you feel like you have researched and made ‘good’ choices you can face shit like this you know? Not very eloquent on very little sleep but it’s an interesting topic given no matter where writers get money they’re criticised for it (TPU & CNZ etc as an example).
Giant kudos for the no ads thing. As you say - the number of people who choose to pay isn't always high. People are used to getting things for free, plus life is hard. What hurts is when I see super wealthy people refusing to pay for things - pirating, refusing to subscribe etc. Then again - I guess that's how they got rich in the first place?!
Rich people often know how to game the system, eg by claiming a housing "entitlement" that is more than I have ever earned in a year. (Looking at you, Mr Luxon.) I'm not surprised to hear that they are reluctant to pay a monthly subscription that's probably nowhere near as expensive as their daily half double decaffeinated half-caf with a twist of lemon.
I agree with your whole point and it's a useful lesson and something to be aware of, though with the greatest respect to most of us Worms I'm not sure that being approached by journalists to get "gotcha-ed" in a tricky story is a very live issue.
But you asked what we felt, and I must say the minute I was reading what had presumably been written with private intention between someone and you, I did feel uncomfortable.
I know I'd feel awkward if outsiders read what I intend to be private/professional correspondence, and so the minute I'm reading this as a Worm I feel like I'm awkwardly eavesdropping on a conversation that wasn't intended for me. However, you were clear and mana-upholding in your response, I think Jonathan was gracious too, and that's all good - between the two of you.
I'm personally a little uncomfortable to see comments from us lot then weighing in - it feels like sometimes we can all, even with the best of intentions (ie. To support our mate David Farrier who is truly doing good work) fall into the trap of slagging off someone else, who didn't know he was communicating with the whole readership of Webworm.
I wonder if there's a way to tell the cautionary story, which is 100% worth telling, without printing people's names and correspondence and throwing them to the Comments Section? Instinctively my gut feels a bit troubled by the response readers are having.
Absolutely. I don't think he handled this well or honorably, for sure, and definitely had an angle. But I just don't love it when all us readers here get into a pile-on on one other human being, and am just wary that we here on Webworm often talk about how much we appreciate this as a safe and kind place, off the main highway of the Ghastlynet. Very few of these readers know him (I don't) or have had any interaction, and we do risk using pretty harsh language about someone we've never met. *That's* what makes me uncomfortable to read.
In a previous post's comments I had a conversation with David about how I would never be willing to do an interview on anything without final approval, and even then I'm not sure I would be interested. A few years ago I was contacted by an established journalist working for a very widely distributed platform whose writings I respect, who was doing a story on a topic for which I could provide useful feedback, and we had a good conversation. He wrote an excellent piece, and included some of my story and a quote in there, reconfirming all of it with me before publication. Very nice piece, I was pleased to have made my tiniest little contribution there to furthering the education of the readership, and I realized that I never wanted to do that again. I will likely never again have a seasoned journalist of that stature doing the interview or the article, and if I ended up finding that experience uncomfortable after-the-fact then anything else was only going to be downhill from there, such as what feels like a bit of "gotcha" interview planned here. I'll stick with my overall privacy and individual conversations with people, but don't need nor want any wider attention.
Generally speaking very few journalists will give you any type of final copy approval on an interview (it's specifically against policy for many publications) but there is definitely some scope for a follow-up on the specific points they are ultimately choosing to quote you on.
The issue is usually less one about potential subterfuge or whatever, and much more about schedules and efficiencies. The idea of writing an article, passing it through an editing process and then having to go back to a quoted source and wait for their approval (or, worse, having to do rewrites at their request) doesn't appeal to many.
Ideally a journalist will:
a) Be upfront about why they want to speak to you, and the framing of their piece and your part in it; and...
b) Fairly represent your position in both the quotes they use and how they paraphrase your broader points.
Sometimes, of course there are misunderstandings (on both sides). There are also often a number of perspectives on an article's content from within a publication and a journalist may not ultimately get to publish the article they'd hoped.
Unfortunately sometimes it's something else. But not often, at least for most journalists.
I totally get it and I’d never expect that to happen, because I know they need to be able to do their work and deliver without additional hurdles to any deadline. It’s why I realized I’m not suitable to be an on-the-record person, but I’d be fine with talking (with someone I respect) as off-the-record to help them built their context and knowledge on the subject. That helps them with their story development and allows me to keep my privacy and comfort, and it was something new I learned about myself in that whole process a few years ago. It gave greater clarity to why I don’t understand “social media influencer” culture.
I got the same feeling as you, but I guess you and I are outside the "game". When a journalist writes to another journalist in a professional capacity, they know anything that isn't "off the record" is very much on the record.
You can be sure David knows anything he responded with is fair game for the podcast. As a spokesperson for the business I work for, I know I have to be extremely careful with how I respond to journalists, even if it's declining to comment.
When I read ‘cool thing to hear wow good stuff’ I gasp-laughed - also I kind of want to use your first email as a template for saying no to things I don’t wanna do! Really enjoying witnessing your journey to aggressive-aggressive 🙏🏼
I work in comms and have seen this approached used by journos from time to time. Sometimes it's disingenuous, sometimes it's more to get over the initial awkward cold call email (you know, let's go for pleasantries first before business). Hard to tell what camp this really falls into, but given the responses you've shared, seems really disappointing. Not sure what reaction it was intending to get. I've dealt with Newsroom and Jonathan on a few occasions over the years and they all fell into the camp of pleasent and fair n=1 and all that - not defending the actions in this case.
It does raise a question around advertising though - what responsibilities do advertisers have to do background checks and investigate the companies that want to give you money? What are listners/consumers expectations? Does a platform give things so much legitimatcey that my responsibilities as a consumer to do my own research dissipate? If a product is good but the owner is a dog, is the product any less good? Dunno but it's interesting thought in a world where advertising has changed a lot.
You raise heaps of good points here. I think Jonathan is a pro and he does really good work - which is why this thing threw me. It felt more like a Plunket approach (that's a low blow I know - the two are not comparable).
I think all your questions about ads are very valid and I spend a fair bit of time thinking about it. Like, when I worked at TV3 and did the news there, our network would run ads for God knows what and I never gave it a second thought. Now I am on this podcast where we run ads - and I feel incredibly responsible - partly because the nature of podcasts is that presenters often read the ads themselves.
The good thing is - it keeps you honest, I guess? Essentially this is same model that I was working under at TV3 - but here on the podcast I am much, much closer to it.
Does this mean each product that we do ads for, I need to check business history of each founder? I would argue no.
I think it comes down to the product - and if the product is a clanger I don't want to advertise it. That's my main call. Hence no alcohol (I drink, but don't like the idea of getting others to - it's poison), gambling, weight loss (icky).
It's lucky that you get to choose the advertisers, some podcasts on networks can't.
A great example of this backfiring is the aussie podcast 'bigsofttitty.png' with comedians Demi Ladner and Tom Walker (so funny, cooked and heartwarming - I think you'd love it). Their aussie listeners sometimes get 'join the aussie army' ads. When they found out, they would actively be like 'we are back from the ads - if you got an ad to join the army, we'll, don't. Fuck them" hahahaha.
And then you read further down the thread to see this distinction already made... PS: Given up any hope Substack could invest a few (US) pennies to have the app & site remember comment sorting preference which I usually change to 'chronological oldest first' every visit
Damn that was uncomfortable. ..I think JM is a shrewd operator and initially considered what his best play would be to get you contribute so he went for the tried and true ego-stroke approach - kiwis! journalistic acquaintances! you’re a bit weird but you’re successful David! …with just enough of a story dangled to get you on the line. That would’ve been the best outcome for his podcast - the gotcha moment when he laid out the crime shit.
He kinda revealed his true self when he pivoted hard to the ‘well fuuuuuuck YOU’ tone in the second email.
Which if you think about it is a bit sad and a bit funny.
From my perspective it just reinforces why I am here, following your exploits David. Your approach is unvarnished, honest and just a little bit aggressive aggressive. :)
Thank you for, at times, wading through the shit on behalf of us all.
Seems like he was less interested in speaking truth to power and more interested in making "good content", at least based on the correspondence here. Hopefully the actual podcast will prove me wrong.
I don't like the guilt by association framing either, grouping you with Rogan and Huberman. Companies are not our friends, and while I'd prefer every brand and company whose products I enjoy share my moral and values, it's ultimately an exercise in futility. You're trying to treat the symptoms instead of the underlying illness.
And yeah I agree with others here that AG1 sounds a bit shady. But then again I don't think I've ever bought anything because of podcast ad (sorry David).
Framing me in with those people felt pretty... gross. I mean - we all have podcasts? We all run ads? I dunno. I got the ick.
As for AG1 - it's something I am assessing. I eat the stuff (in amongst a newfound appetite for salads, and dropping bread) as I am trying to be as healthy as possible, but I'm reading more. I see all the shit in there and assume it's doing me some kind of good, for someone that struggles to eat healthy food.
I mean, no-one *needs* a supplement - we just need to eat well. Right now I am doing both (call me American!)
I suspect 'ick' was the reaction he was going for.
For me it's less about AG1 specifically (although the CEO's colorful history does raise a few eyebrows), than a distrust of the Health and Wellness Industrial Complex in general. If it works for you though, that's great.
And I can sympathize on the unsavory advertisers front. I work in TV, and a couple of years ago we were required to run ads for Fox News of all things. I knew it was useless to complain, so I just placed it late at night, and then ran a public service announcement about sexual harassment right after it.
To weigh in on supplements - my spouse has worked in the natural health / supplement space for 15+ years and I never took ANY before meeting them. Supplements can be super beneficial but you essentially need a natural pharmacology degree (or know someone with one) to know what you should take. You should also be extremely wary of any supplements produced in the USA as they aren't upheld to any standards whatsoever (I mean, they can't be POISON, but that's about it). My spouse's company is Canadian, and they are held to very rigorous standards by what is essentially the Canadian FDA - much better to look for stuff from there. If you ever need advice, I'm sure they (spouse) would be happy to send recommendations.
That was exactly my thoughts as soon as Rogan was slipped into the mix.
Wtf would you think it was a compliment (let alone an incentive!) to be associated in any way to that douchbag? It was an instant red flag.
Good on you David for seeing the 'invitation' exactly for what it was IMHO. Or are we just getting so used to being screwed over by MSM/big corporations/Marketing thesedays that we can't trust anyone?
Like you've said in the comments here, I think there's more of a responsibility for podcast presenters as it comes across as personal endorsement of the products rather than just some purchased ad space. I'm glad to know there's a bunch of ads you've specifically refused I'm just still dubious about those two as well.
I guess the real problem for me is the format on podcasts of it being read out by people that I otherwise trust to be objective and truthful. When the ads are being read it messes with that feeling for me and I guess that's the whole point and not your fault as one podcaster of many.
I think you raise a really good point in the culture of podcasts: The ad read. When I was reporting the news I was also on a network that ran ads - but I wasn't reading them, so felt I escaped any kind of responsibility! Thanks for that BetterHelp link - that sucks shit. Appreciate you bringing it to my / Worms' attention.
Yep I got a weird $12ish compensation payment from better help for leaking my data. And the service was borderline scammy and definitely not as described.
$12?! This reminds me I want to do an episode on these class action emails you get from American law firms. I got one about a data breach from some service I signed up for... should I have followed through?
Most of the time it's less than $5 or worse a coupon/voucher for something they hope you'll never use and the lawyers involved make off like bandits. I have had a few that were a much smaller class with higher value that ended up with $75-$500 distributions, but even then it's usually a very small amount compared to whatever you spent initially.
Thanks for this. I have had a few of these emails now and gone "that's interesting" and gone no further. I suppose there's always the hope of a big windfall one day...
Every so often I'll get a check from some class action lawsuit I've never heard of against some corporation I did business with many years prior. Usually just a couple bucks, but I still cash it.
Once I got one because my entire genetic profile had been leaked in a data breach.
Holy heck that's scary. We do need to protect our data better. If someone gets hold of your driver's licence details they can go crazy. It happened to me. Power companies don't check the identity of the person applying in any way. I didn't live at the property and none of the contact details were mine, just my name and driver's licence. She booked up $000's with various power companies, phone companies and finance companies. Until one credit controller ran a simple Google check on me and found out it wasn't me. What a mess to sort out. She had serially been photographing people's drivers licences. 7 other people were affected that I know about. I drew it to MBIE's attention, the privacy commission etc but the loop hole remains.
Cripes! That's an extreme leak, for sure. Not meaning to pry, but was it along the lines of a company holding DNA? I have people constantly suggest I send my DNA to somewhere like ancestry.com for locating lost family members, but I dislike the concept of a private company having my DNA, most particularly if the company gets onsold to a different company in a country exhibiting unethical values that don't match mine!
No worries! The company is Ambry Genetics, and they do testing for various hereditary cancers and other diseases. I got checked out a couple years ago for a risk assessment put an abundance of caution.
I don't know what hackers would actually *do* with all this genetic information. Hopefully they're aren't any clones of me running around out there.
Im hoping to get 20usd for my old Verizon phone plan from 6 years ago. The initial email with it's weird legalise and font choices sure looked like a scam, but I searched and saw it was real, though I didn't click the email links just in case and searched for the settlement site instead.
It's like entering online competitions, but the prizes are crap, but the chance of winning is high
I always sign up when I get notified that I am part of a class action lawsuit too, I’ve never though about it being a weirdly American thing! I’ve gotten a couple of checks for $100+ which is always nice (though doesn’t make up for whatever bs the company is being sued for).
For several months now I’ve noticed a LOT of people leaving very negative comments when a channel or podcast run Better Help ads but didn’t really understand the context so good to know at last. It’s interesting that you obviously haven’t had that, different audience I guess?
I want to think about this one more: It's such a GIANT service and according to some reporting a few years ago some bad eggs slip into the mix. And obviously if people can pay, they should see someone in person and probably pay them a lot more.
The counter is that this app gives affordable access. The OTHER counter then is are their therapists being paid enough...
I'm surprised you have only just heard about the BetterHelp controversies - you always seem to have your finger on the pulse.
I was even more surprised I hadn't heard about the man behind AG1 until today - they are one of the biggest sponsors on YouTube & none of the YouTubers known for investigating sponsors have said boo about him 😲
I wish it was more on the pulse than it is sometimes - my brain feels like breaking. I hadn't heard of the data leak from BH. I *had* heard about a therapist on their service saying to someone in the LGBTQI+ community should seek God, not gayness. Or something to that effect. Horrific story.
The counter: it's a giant network that seems to offer some people affordable therapy - which right now, I assume is better than no therapy for some. That's the balance the controversy.
I will go do some more googling to see show good / shit it is. Might make a good Webworm - and if anyone reading this has personal experience with this service please drop me a line: davidfarrier@protonmail.com
As for AG1 - yeah, a first. He seems like a dipshit. I don't watch YouTube - I just hear it advertised on some of the other podcasts I listen to. Again - this Substack seems like they have AG1 in their sites and has done some good digging, and promises more: https://sgcarney.substack.com/p/ag1-chris-ashenden
Also for what it's worth I do look forward to the Newsroom podcast. Why are founders like this?!
Maybe you could get someone else to read them, and have that spliced into the audio (I will admit I don't listen to any podcasts, including FB)? Though the advertisers may be wanting it to come from the same voice, for the exact reason that they get to pick up some transfer credibility and then you do have to do a bit more research on them before agreeing to put it in your own voice. Whenever I get content these days I try to avoid ad-supported, and just pay the difference to not have to deal with that content or consumption of my time.
It's a time issue, and also a style issue: generally an audience likes the hosts, and likes even annoying ads being read by someone they don't hate listening to. That's the basic logic I think!
I'm sure the advertisers do want it to come from the same voice. Whatever goodvibes we have about the person might rub off on their product. And I have to say, hearing ads read by someone like David, I would think he's probably tried it because he wouldn't want to lie to his podcast listeners, and he's probably done at least a brief check that the product and company aren't known to be harming people, because that's the kind of thing he looks into. So it would make me more likely to trust the product, even though I don't rationally expect him to do a full journalistic investigation into the product, company and owners before reading an ad. Capitalism sucks, can we smash it now?
Oh boy you just laid out what I replied a minute ago. I concur 100% I sent an email to Armchair Expert as soon as the story broke on BetterHelp. I was so angry. It’s such a betrayal for a company that works in mental health to sell data. I still get very heated just thinking about it. Even then though, I wasn’t mad at the podcast. I was just hoping they’d feel similarly and stop taking money from evil people. I also understand that money needs to move in that way and they are probably a big spender. I’m also inside of the ethics here and I feel for David. This game existed long ago and it gets better at manipulation over time. Just wait until machine learning unveils its true might.
There are absolutely times in journalism when you will need to without some details about what you know or are doing from the people you approach. This really doesn't feel like one.
I assume the podcast will be somewhat exposé in style, and possibly rightfully so, but it feels like the initial approach was intended to catch David in that, which seems somewhat unnecessary. And then the pivot shows what's really underlying the approach.
That said, I often wonder about the ethical line in podcast, YouTube and social media ads. Having presenters do ad reads and present personal testimony is somewhat different from a externally produced ad being rolled into a gap in a TV show or radio show. There are definitely cases where scammy companies have exploited the trust in various influencers and creators to target their audiences.
I doubt that's the case here, but I don't envy the challenge faced by podcasters and others in choosing what advertisers they will pair themselves with.
Let's just say I am fucking glad Webworm doesn't have ads.
The annoying thing with podcasts is that people just expect them for free - and so ads is the only way you can get money so you can keep producing the podcast and pay editors to cut and musicians to score and for gear etc.
I did a series for Audible ages ago, and not a single person has listened as it's behind a paywall (and it's also not very good haha).
I am not much a podcast listener but it always strikes me as a weird when a presenter reads an ad. It is very old school -- radio worked that way back in the day (I know this my Mum had a story about an announcer who had been having it away with one of the typists and after they fell out she typed up a page of copy about Litchfield Shirts with all of the "r"s missing, and he got about half way through before he said a very bad word into a live mike in the 1950s) but I think it does often sound like an endorsement.
The main thing about the logic of a presenter reading it is because usually the listener is there for the hosts, so they're less likely to skip the ads if the voices they are used to hearing are the ones doing the ad read. It makes it less of a "knee jerk" experience. Conan does a really good job at this. It's also cheaper for everyone involved, I guess.
I guess so. But I think it does mean that the presenter has more responsibility for the content than would be the case if they were injected automatically. (I am not a dedicated listener to any podcasts but it always sounds like a quasi-endorsement when I hear them -- maybe it just washes over more regular audience members)
Can I just add, it was really nice and fair of you not to share his 'off the record' response. Now I have even more respect for you (if that's even possible at this point.)
This just in my inbox from Jonathan Milne:
"Hi David, I’ve read today’s post. I acknowledge you’re entitled to take that view and express it publicly.
Yours, Jonathan"
Does this mean he’s upgraded from cheapo and is now a paid subscriber??
I am guessing someone forwarded it onto him. I mean, else he'd post it here, right?
Is he going for the gold in the passive aggressive olympics? God almighty.
“Hi, Paul Rudd! I wanted to talk to you about Kevin Spacey, as you’re both American actors who have dabbled in comedy. Can’t wait to hear from you!”
Hahaahahahaha
😂
Kevin Spacey admitted during a "tearful interview" with Piers Morgan he was "a bit handsy and didn't ask for consent" re his recent aquittal for sexual abuse of men while working in England. Spacey was only tearful because he was relieved he wouldn't become someones bum bandit in prison! He should be behind bars grrrr.
I have a great deal of respect for true journalists. That's why I'm here. I find that you're one of the few good ones left. I have a stack of biographies about the likes of Bob Woodward, Tom Brokaw, Mike Wallace (not a comprehensive list), because a solid journalist is of keen interest to me. I think it's probably in line with my underlying thirst for authenticity. Ethics being at the center of it all. Milne was setting you up for a "gotcha" moment on his podcast. That, along with click-bait headlines, are the most despicable things happening in "journalism" today. You did good, stayed true to yourself. Exhibited ethics. Made me glad to be a Worm and now I'm even more excited for my sticker to arrive.
Thanks, Jay. I definitely am far from perfect, a lot of missteps in my time, but I try.
And I love our stickers! I hope it finds a good home.
To me, it seemed cagey, like he wanted to trap you, with ‘dick swingy’ elements thrown in - like I was reading between the lines a lot and thinking about the context of your work overseas and how that’s probably not always celebrated by your NZ peers for various reasons. I could practically hear him saying “you think you’re some big shot living in LA, hanging out with celebs etc etc”. It would have been so much more graceful if he had just responded to your first reply with thanks and moved on. If I was being generous, I’d say maybe he was just fucking up the framing and being impulsive but he’s a journalist so he’s supposed to be great at words. I’m rambling now. God you do have to deal with some people David!
A bit of tall poppy syndrome maybe? Try to take David down and make him look a bit off bc of this miniscule thing. Rather than support his genuine desire to tell news in a straightforward way.
Eewwwww, that's super gross. This is something we've had to do big community awareness on in the trans community, and continue to do. So many unsuspecting trans folks agree to interviews or panels and then that footage is used in anti-trans films/segments or it's just a pile-on. Awful behaviour.
As if the community doesn't have enough to contend with already...
I’m sorry to hear that.
This is awful! Crappy way to treat another human.
Someone I knew agreed to be on a Newshub segment and while she was treated decently by Newshub, they then put it on FB and the comment section (which they didn't moderate) was absolutely disgusting. I complained to Newshub about it and they just kinda shrugged it off.
Omg that is awful, I’m sorry to hear that.
Woah, that’s fucked up. I’d hope for better from Newsroom though they do publish their fair share of crap takes. Another to add to my ‘be wary of’ list :(
They do a lot of good work, too - and it's my old TV3 boss who hired me, Mark Jennings! A strange one, right?
There are still some great journos out there, but the platforms they have to operate on, and this gotcha, clickbaity style they all have to contend with.
And I really hate that mainstream media in NZ seems to feel like it has to take such a grotesquely tepid tone on Gaza.
I do not think I will be able stomach watching Jack Tame ever again after the twin Israeli ambassador and Palestinian Authority interviews. He hounded and hounded the Palestinian guy about the original Hamas charter, but the guy is from an organisation diametrically opposed to Hamas! And yet he did not ask a single question of the Israeli guy about the genocidal rhetoric espoused by members of the government he does represent!
Agree 100% Molly!
One of the co-editors at Newsroom is married to Juliet Moses, one of the most high profile zionists in the country - and they published an article on her accusing a room full of survivors of the Chch terror attack of being the real terrorist supporters at the counter-terrorism hui as though she was the real victim because people responded "Free Palestine" and walked out: https://newsroom.co.nz/2021/06/15/behind-tensions-at-the-terror-hui/ (note that the actual comments Moses made that prompted the walkout the article is about are not quoted, despite that presumably being incredibly important context).
They're never going to be able to provide truly fair coverage on Gaza with that direction being set from the top.
Right, so this is Mark Jennings? Who both David and I have worked with. NZ is small, everyone has connections to someone else, it is a slippery slope to make judgements on people based on who they are related to, especially in NZ. There is only one bylined article by Juliet on the Newsroom website that I can see.
I am far, far more concerned about RNZ continually having Juliet and the Zionist lobby on what is essentially our state broadcaster.
And the subpar journalistic practice of our other state broadcaster TVNZ when it comes to our only current affairs programming.
That article is pretty sick though. The rise of Islamophobia has been an certainly been an insidious and creeping campaign. I'm just not comfortable with going towards a reds under the bed type mentality on the issue
Where do we go to now for current affairs in NZ? Sunday with Miriama Kamo had some great stories, not like the other one late evening which featured American murder stories! We want less America in our lives not more!!
One thing we don’t talk about is how hard it is to pay the rent without ads. I don’t do any ads and it’s a nightmare - it’s impossible to fund the things I want to fund without advertising. Very often the people who criticise those who rarely use ads and are careful with who they partner with are the same people who never pay for a subscription or give koha. You can’t have it both ways - if you won’t support creators trying to create ethically then you have to recognise you’re part of the system. I’ve turned down the same ad offers you have - including a huge contract for weight loss that would have paid me enough to live for half a year. I’ve turned down pharmaceutical companies and medical tech companies and it’s actually hard to do because you need money. I hope people will recognise how hard it is to 1) decline money when you need money and 2) ethically run ads. Because even when you feel like you have researched and made ‘good’ choices you can face shit like this you know? Not very eloquent on very little sleep but it’s an interesting topic given no matter where writers get money they’re criticised for it (TPU & CNZ etc as an example).
Giant kudos for the no ads thing. As you say - the number of people who choose to pay isn't always high. People are used to getting things for free, plus life is hard. What hurts is when I see super wealthy people refusing to pay for things - pirating, refusing to subscribe etc. Then again - I guess that's how they got rich in the first place?!
Rich people often know how to game the system, eg by claiming a housing "entitlement" that is more than I have ever earned in a year. (Looking at you, Mr Luxon.) I'm not surprised to hear that they are reluctant to pay a monthly subscription that's probably nowhere near as expensive as their daily half double decaffeinated half-caf with a twist of lemon.
Also I’m sorry David it is a yuck feeling when you get emails like this ❤️
It was mostly *anger* I felt, which is rare for me. Rarer, these days I think!
Thanks to the therapy services of BetterHelp... With BetterHelp you can simply... ;-)
I agree with your whole point and it's a useful lesson and something to be aware of, though with the greatest respect to most of us Worms I'm not sure that being approached by journalists to get "gotcha-ed" in a tricky story is a very live issue.
But you asked what we felt, and I must say the minute I was reading what had presumably been written with private intention between someone and you, I did feel uncomfortable.
I know I'd feel awkward if outsiders read what I intend to be private/professional correspondence, and so the minute I'm reading this as a Worm I feel like I'm awkwardly eavesdropping on a conversation that wasn't intended for me. However, you were clear and mana-upholding in your response, I think Jonathan was gracious too, and that's all good - between the two of you.
I'm personally a little uncomfortable to see comments from us lot then weighing in - it feels like sometimes we can all, even with the best of intentions (ie. To support our mate David Farrier who is truly doing good work) fall into the trap of slagging off someone else, who didn't know he was communicating with the whole readership of Webworm.
I wonder if there's a way to tell the cautionary story, which is 100% worth telling, without printing people's names and correspondence and throwing them to the Comments Section? Instinctively my gut feels a bit troubled by the response readers are having.
All fair points.
My reasoning: I thought about not including the name, but to me it's an accountability issue and a good case study in the process.
He's not a junior - he's been doing this for a long time.
I'd also note I didn't scoop him here - this stuff has been reported already in regards to the founder.
He had also read it, and emailed me - so technically he should of signed up to read it and is therefore able to write back here with any feedback!
Absolutely. I don't think he handled this well or honorably, for sure, and definitely had an angle. But I just don't love it when all us readers here get into a pile-on on one other human being, and am just wary that we here on Webworm often talk about how much we appreciate this as a safe and kind place, off the main highway of the Ghastlynet. Very few of these readers know him (I don't) or have had any interaction, and we do risk using pretty harsh language about someone we've never met. *That's* what makes me uncomfortable to read.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and feelings so well, definitely food for thought for me 🫶🏻
In a previous post's comments I had a conversation with David about how I would never be willing to do an interview on anything without final approval, and even then I'm not sure I would be interested. A few years ago I was contacted by an established journalist working for a very widely distributed platform whose writings I respect, who was doing a story on a topic for which I could provide useful feedback, and we had a good conversation. He wrote an excellent piece, and included some of my story and a quote in there, reconfirming all of it with me before publication. Very nice piece, I was pleased to have made my tiniest little contribution there to furthering the education of the readership, and I realized that I never wanted to do that again. I will likely never again have a seasoned journalist of that stature doing the interview or the article, and if I ended up finding that experience uncomfortable after-the-fact then anything else was only going to be downhill from there, such as what feels like a bit of "gotcha" interview planned here. I'll stick with my overall privacy and individual conversations with people, but don't need nor want any wider attention.
Generally speaking very few journalists will give you any type of final copy approval on an interview (it's specifically against policy for many publications) but there is definitely some scope for a follow-up on the specific points they are ultimately choosing to quote you on.
The issue is usually less one about potential subterfuge or whatever, and much more about schedules and efficiencies. The idea of writing an article, passing it through an editing process and then having to go back to a quoted source and wait for their approval (or, worse, having to do rewrites at their request) doesn't appeal to many.
Ideally a journalist will:
a) Be upfront about why they want to speak to you, and the framing of their piece and your part in it; and...
b) Fairly represent your position in both the quotes they use and how they paraphrase your broader points.
Sometimes, of course there are misunderstandings (on both sides). There are also often a number of perspectives on an article's content from within a publication and a journalist may not ultimately get to publish the article they'd hoped.
Unfortunately sometimes it's something else. But not often, at least for most journalists.
I totally get it and I’d never expect that to happen, because I know they need to be able to do their work and deliver without additional hurdles to any deadline. It’s why I realized I’m not suitable to be an on-the-record person, but I’d be fine with talking (with someone I respect) as off-the-record to help them built their context and knowledge on the subject. That helps them with their story development and allows me to keep my privacy and comfort, and it was something new I learned about myself in that whole process a few years ago. It gave greater clarity to why I don’t understand “social media influencer” culture.
I got the same feeling as you, but I guess you and I are outside the "game". When a journalist writes to another journalist in a professional capacity, they know anything that isn't "off the record" is very much on the record.
You can be sure David knows anything he responded with is fair game for the podcast. As a spokesperson for the business I work for, I know I have to be extremely careful with how I respond to journalists, even if it's declining to comment.
'David Farrer' and " good work" in the same sentence? ye gods and little fishes
What a bait and switch! It’s just pure dishonesty and you are right to call it out.
Was also interesting to peer behind the curtain into the world of journalism
When I read ‘cool thing to hear wow good stuff’ I gasp-laughed - also I kind of want to use your first email as a template for saying no to things I don’t wanna do! Really enjoying witnessing your journey to aggressive-aggressive 🙏🏼
New me: Fuming Farrier.
Haha. Lack of punctuation = quietly: "fuck off". Loved it.
I work in comms and have seen this approached used by journos from time to time. Sometimes it's disingenuous, sometimes it's more to get over the initial awkward cold call email (you know, let's go for pleasantries first before business). Hard to tell what camp this really falls into, but given the responses you've shared, seems really disappointing. Not sure what reaction it was intending to get. I've dealt with Newsroom and Jonathan on a few occasions over the years and they all fell into the camp of pleasent and fair n=1 and all that - not defending the actions in this case.
It does raise a question around advertising though - what responsibilities do advertisers have to do background checks and investigate the companies that want to give you money? What are listners/consumers expectations? Does a platform give things so much legitimatcey that my responsibilities as a consumer to do my own research dissipate? If a product is good but the owner is a dog, is the product any less good? Dunno but it's interesting thought in a world where advertising has changed a lot.
Solid work brother
You raise heaps of good points here. I think Jonathan is a pro and he does really good work - which is why this thing threw me. It felt more like a Plunket approach (that's a low blow I know - the two are not comparable).
I think all your questions about ads are very valid and I spend a fair bit of time thinking about it. Like, when I worked at TV3 and did the news there, our network would run ads for God knows what and I never gave it a second thought. Now I am on this podcast where we run ads - and I feel incredibly responsible - partly because the nature of podcasts is that presenters often read the ads themselves.
The good thing is - it keeps you honest, I guess? Essentially this is same model that I was working under at TV3 - but here on the podcast I am much, much closer to it.
Does this mean each product that we do ads for, I need to check business history of each founder? I would argue no.
I think it comes down to the product - and if the product is a clanger I don't want to advertise it. That's my main call. Hence no alcohol (I drink, but don't like the idea of getting others to - it's poison), gambling, weight loss (icky).
It's lucky that you get to choose the advertisers, some podcasts on networks can't.
A great example of this backfiring is the aussie podcast 'bigsofttitty.png' with comedians Demi Ladner and Tom Walker (so funny, cooked and heartwarming - I think you'd love it). Their aussie listeners sometimes get 'join the aussie army' ads. When they found out, they would actively be like 'we are back from the ads - if you got an ad to join the army, we'll, don't. Fuck them" hahahaha.
I feel lucky I get that freedom from the bosses!
I think a difference is host read ads vs ads. Host read implies more of a connection even if that isn't the case.
And then you read further down the thread to see this distinction already made... PS: Given up any hope Substack could invest a few (US) pennies to have the app & site remember comment sorting preference which I usually change to 'chronological oldest first' every visit
Damn that was uncomfortable. ..I think JM is a shrewd operator and initially considered what his best play would be to get you contribute so he went for the tried and true ego-stroke approach - kiwis! journalistic acquaintances! you’re a bit weird but you’re successful David! …with just enough of a story dangled to get you on the line. That would’ve been the best outcome for his podcast - the gotcha moment when he laid out the crime shit.
He kinda revealed his true self when he pivoted hard to the ‘well fuuuuuuck YOU’ tone in the second email.
Which if you think about it is a bit sad and a bit funny.
From my perspective it just reinforces why I am here, following your exploits David. Your approach is unvarnished, honest and just a little bit aggressive aggressive. :)
Thank you for, at times, wading through the shit on behalf of us all.
"Uncomfortable" is the exact right word!
Your reading of this is also my reading. Also just a case study of how New Zealand we can be as New Zealanders!
Seems like he was less interested in speaking truth to power and more interested in making "good content", at least based on the correspondence here. Hopefully the actual podcast will prove me wrong.
I don't like the guilt by association framing either, grouping you with Rogan and Huberman. Companies are not our friends, and while I'd prefer every brand and company whose products I enjoy share my moral and values, it's ultimately an exercise in futility. You're trying to treat the symptoms instead of the underlying illness.
And yeah I agree with others here that AG1 sounds a bit shady. But then again I don't think I've ever bought anything because of podcast ad (sorry David).
Framing me in with those people felt pretty... gross. I mean - we all have podcasts? We all run ads? I dunno. I got the ick.
As for AG1 - it's something I am assessing. I eat the stuff (in amongst a newfound appetite for salads, and dropping bread) as I am trying to be as healthy as possible, but I'm reading more. I see all the shit in there and assume it's doing me some kind of good, for someone that struggles to eat healthy food.
I mean, no-one *needs* a supplement - we just need to eat well. Right now I am doing both (call me American!)
I suspect 'ick' was the reaction he was going for.
For me it's less about AG1 specifically (although the CEO's colorful history does raise a few eyebrows), than a distrust of the Health and Wellness Industrial Complex in general. If it works for you though, that's great.
And I can sympathize on the unsavory advertisers front. I work in TV, and a couple of years ago we were required to run ads for Fox News of all things. I knew it was useless to complain, so I just placed it late at night, and then ran a public service announcement about sexual harassment right after it.
I’m with you on distrust of the health and wellness industry. They seem to have an overload of participants who are sparse with the truth and reality.
To weigh in on supplements - my spouse has worked in the natural health / supplement space for 15+ years and I never took ANY before meeting them. Supplements can be super beneficial but you essentially need a natural pharmacology degree (or know someone with one) to know what you should take. You should also be extremely wary of any supplements produced in the USA as they aren't upheld to any standards whatsoever (I mean, they can't be POISON, but that's about it). My spouse's company is Canadian, and they are held to very rigorous standards by what is essentially the Canadian FDA - much better to look for stuff from there. If you ever need advice, I'm sure they (spouse) would be happy to send recommendations.
That was exactly my thoughts as soon as Rogan was slipped into the mix.
Wtf would you think it was a compliment (let alone an incentive!) to be associated in any way to that douchbag? It was an instant red flag.
Good on you David for seeing the 'invitation' exactly for what it was IMHO. Or are we just getting so used to being screwed over by MSM/big corporations/Marketing thesedays that we can't trust anyone?
I had already been thinking about AG1 and BetterHelp that you advertise on Flightless Bird. AG1 like most supplements doesn't seem to have particularly strong proof that it does what it says and BetterHelp have a bit of a history of not managing their user's data responsibly (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/03/ftc-ban-betterhelp-revealing-consumers-data-including-sensitive-mental-health-information-facebook).
Like you've said in the comments here, I think there's more of a responsibility for podcast presenters as it comes across as personal endorsement of the products rather than just some purchased ad space. I'm glad to know there's a bunch of ads you've specifically refused I'm just still dubious about those two as well.
I guess the real problem for me is the format on podcasts of it being read out by people that I otherwise trust to be objective and truthful. When the ads are being read it messes with that feeling for me and I guess that's the whole point and not your fault as one podcaster of many.
I think you raise a really good point in the culture of podcasts: The ad read. When I was reporting the news I was also on a network that ran ads - but I wasn't reading them, so felt I escaped any kind of responsibility! Thanks for that BetterHelp link - that sucks shit. Appreciate you bringing it to my / Worms' attention.
Yep I got a weird $12ish compensation payment from better help for leaking my data. And the service was borderline scammy and definitely not as described.
$12?! This reminds me I want to do an episode on these class action emails you get from American law firms. I got one about a data breach from some service I signed up for... should I have followed through?
Most of the time it's less than $5 or worse a coupon/voucher for something they hope you'll never use and the lawyers involved make off like bandits. I have had a few that were a much smaller class with higher value that ended up with $75-$500 distributions, but even then it's usually a very small amount compared to whatever you spent initially.
Thanks for this. I have had a few of these emails now and gone "that's interesting" and gone no further. I suppose there's always the hope of a big windfall one day...
Sidebar: can you email me, in case I end up doing a FB on this? (optional): davidfarrier@protonmail.com
Every so often I'll get a check from some class action lawsuit I've never heard of against some corporation I did business with many years prior. Usually just a couple bucks, but I still cash it.
Once I got one because my entire genetic profile had been leaked in a data breach.
Holy heck that's scary. We do need to protect our data better. If someone gets hold of your driver's licence details they can go crazy. It happened to me. Power companies don't check the identity of the person applying in any way. I didn't live at the property and none of the contact details were mine, just my name and driver's licence. She booked up $000's with various power companies, phone companies and finance companies. Until one credit controller ran a simple Google check on me and found out it wasn't me. What a mess to sort out. She had serially been photographing people's drivers licences. 7 other people were affected that I know about. I drew it to MBIE's attention, the privacy commission etc but the loop hole remains.
That's crazy! Sorry that happened to you
Joe - if you feel like it, can you email me, in case I end up doing a FB on this? (optional): davidfarrier@protonmail.com
Just want to have your story and details aside if I dive into it later in the year...
Cripes! That's an extreme leak, for sure. Not meaning to pry, but was it along the lines of a company holding DNA? I have people constantly suggest I send my DNA to somewhere like ancestry.com for locating lost family members, but I dislike the concept of a private company having my DNA, most particularly if the company gets onsold to a different company in a country exhibiting unethical values that don't match mine!
No worries! The company is Ambry Genetics, and they do testing for various hereditary cancers and other diseases. I got checked out a couple years ago for a risk assessment put an abundance of caution.
I don't know what hackers would actually *do* with all this genetic information. Hopefully they're aren't any clones of me running around out there.
Im hoping to get 20usd for my old Verizon phone plan from 6 years ago. The initial email with it's weird legalise and font choices sure looked like a scam, but I searched and saw it was real, though I didn't click the email links just in case and searched for the settlement site instead.
It's like entering online competitions, but the prizes are crap, but the chance of winning is high
I always sign up when I get notified that I am part of a class action lawsuit too, I’ve never though about it being a weirdly American thing! I’ve gotten a couple of checks for $100+ which is always nice (though doesn’t make up for whatever bs the company is being sued for).
For several months now I’ve noticed a LOT of people leaving very negative comments when a channel or podcast run Better Help ads but didn’t really understand the context so good to know at last. It’s interesting that you obviously haven’t had that, different audience I guess?
I actually sent David an email a while ago about better help being objectively bad and reccommending it not be used by the podcast 😅
Can you please re-send and bump up in my inbox?
I want to think about this one more: It's such a GIANT service and according to some reporting a few years ago some bad eggs slip into the mix. And obviously if people can pay, they should see someone in person and probably pay them a lot more.
The counter is that this app gives affordable access. The OTHER counter then is are their therapists being paid enough...
Okay - I am rambling - please resend!
I'm surprised you have only just heard about the BetterHelp controversies - you always seem to have your finger on the pulse.
I was even more surprised I hadn't heard about the man behind AG1 until today - they are one of the biggest sponsors on YouTube & none of the YouTubers known for investigating sponsors have said boo about him 😲
I wish it was more on the pulse than it is sometimes - my brain feels like breaking. I hadn't heard of the data leak from BH. I *had* heard about a therapist on their service saying to someone in the LGBTQI+ community should seek God, not gayness. Or something to that effect. Horrific story.
The counter: it's a giant network that seems to offer some people affordable therapy - which right now, I assume is better than no therapy for some. That's the balance the controversy.
I will go do some more googling to see show good / shit it is. Might make a good Webworm - and if anyone reading this has personal experience with this service please drop me a line: davidfarrier@protonmail.com
As for AG1 - yeah, a first. He seems like a dipshit. I don't watch YouTube - I just hear it advertised on some of the other podcasts I listen to. Again - this Substack seems like they have AG1 in their sites and has done some good digging, and promises more: https://sgcarney.substack.com/p/ag1-chris-ashenden
Also for what it's worth I do look forward to the Newsroom podcast. Why are founders like this?!
Maybe you could get someone else to read them, and have that spliced into the audio (I will admit I don't listen to any podcasts, including FB)? Though the advertisers may be wanting it to come from the same voice, for the exact reason that they get to pick up some transfer credibility and then you do have to do a bit more research on them before agreeing to put it in your own voice. Whenever I get content these days I try to avoid ad-supported, and just pay the difference to not have to deal with that content or consumption of my time.
It's a time issue, and also a style issue: generally an audience likes the hosts, and likes even annoying ads being read by someone they don't hate listening to. That's the basic logic I think!
I'm sure the advertisers do want it to come from the same voice. Whatever goodvibes we have about the person might rub off on their product. And I have to say, hearing ads read by someone like David, I would think he's probably tried it because he wouldn't want to lie to his podcast listeners, and he's probably done at least a brief check that the product and company aren't known to be harming people, because that's the kind of thing he looks into. So it would make me more likely to trust the product, even though I don't rationally expect him to do a full journalistic investigation into the product, company and owners before reading an ad. Capitalism sucks, can we smash it now?
Oh boy you just laid out what I replied a minute ago. I concur 100% I sent an email to Armchair Expert as soon as the story broke on BetterHelp. I was so angry. It’s such a betrayal for a company that works in mental health to sell data. I still get very heated just thinking about it. Even then though, I wasn’t mad at the podcast. I was just hoping they’d feel similarly and stop taking money from evil people. I also understand that money needs to move in that way and they are probably a big spender. I’m also inside of the ethics here and I feel for David. This game existed long ago and it gets better at manipulation over time. Just wait until machine learning unveils its true might.
There are absolutely times in journalism when you will need to without some details about what you know or are doing from the people you approach. This really doesn't feel like one.
I assume the podcast will be somewhat exposé in style, and possibly rightfully so, but it feels like the initial approach was intended to catch David in that, which seems somewhat unnecessary. And then the pivot shows what's really underlying the approach.
That said, I often wonder about the ethical line in podcast, YouTube and social media ads. Having presenters do ad reads and present personal testimony is somewhat different from a externally produced ad being rolled into a gap in a TV show or radio show. There are definitely cases where scammy companies have exploited the trust in various influencers and creators to target their audiences.
I doubt that's the case here, but I don't envy the challenge faced by podcasters and others in choosing what advertisers they will pair themselves with.
Let's just say I am fucking glad Webworm doesn't have ads.
The annoying thing with podcasts is that people just expect them for free - and so ads is the only way you can get money so you can keep producing the podcast and pay editors to cut and musicians to score and for gear etc.
I did a series for Audible ages ago, and not a single person has listened as it's behind a paywall (and it's also not very good haha).
So, that's a "NO" to Rudy Giulianis latest coffee ad, then, Dylan? ;-)
I am not much a podcast listener but it always strikes me as a weird when a presenter reads an ad. It is very old school -- radio worked that way back in the day (I know this my Mum had a story about an announcer who had been having it away with one of the typists and after they fell out she typed up a page of copy about Litchfield Shirts with all of the "r"s missing, and he got about half way through before he said a very bad word into a live mike in the 1950s) but I think it does often sound like an endorsement.
The main thing about the logic of a presenter reading it is because usually the listener is there for the hosts, so they're less likely to skip the ads if the voices they are used to hearing are the ones doing the ad read. It makes it less of a "knee jerk" experience. Conan does a really good job at this. It's also cheaper for everyone involved, I guess.
I guess so. But I think it does mean that the presenter has more responsibility for the content than would be the case if they were injected automatically. (I am not a dedicated listener to any podcasts but it always sounds like a quasi-endorsement when I hear them -- maybe it just washes over more regular audience members)
Good thoughts!
Great story for Friday evening :)
Can I just add, it was really nice and fair of you not to share his 'off the record' response. Now I have even more respect for you (if that's even possible at this point.)