Thread by @ray8fisher

I guess @RollingStone’s lawyers finally explained the stark legal contrast of “declined comment” and “did not respond” to @TatianaSiegel27 and @NoahShachtman

While I appreciate them quietly changing the article, it’s sad that it even came to this.

See thread below for details🪡

In 2021, The Hollywood Reporter opted to run a piece about me (written by Kim Masters) that exposed the racism and toxicity of former and current Warner execs.

As reported by LA Mag, Siegel—who was an editor at THR at the time—was none too pleased.

*Blue line indicates irony*

It would seem that rather than allow her rejected pro-Warner nonsense to die at THR, Siegel decided to move to RS and print her outdated rumors and lies a year later.

Siegel’s idea on how to reframe/refurbish her rejected THR story for her new bosses at Rolling Stone?

🤖

Now, for what has to be one of the most boneheaded moves I’ve ever seen in journalism:

Rolling Stone editor-in-chief, Noah Shachtman, attempted to defend Siegel’s lie that I “declined” to comment for her hit piece.

How?

By publicly furnishing misleadingly cropped emails.🤦🏾‍♂️

Too bad for Shachtman that emails go both ways…

Below (in white) is the cropped email Shachtman chose to share with the world.

Next to it (in black) is the FULL email.

*Observe how Shachtman shadily decided to exclude the original response deadline and confidentiality note.

Surely Twitter wasn’t “an intended recipient” of Siegel’s email.

And as far as I can tell, neither was Shachtman.

So,why would Shachtman resort to such a tacky and misleading move?

And why is HE the one publicly furnishing Siegel’s emails and not Siegel herself?

Desperation.

As editor in chief of Rolling Stone, Shachtman is likely on the hook for Siegel’s lies just as much as Siegel herself.

Rather than overtly say I “declined” Siegel’s request, which would’ve landed Shachtman and Rolling Stone in even deeper trouble—Shachtman believed he could sway

the court of public opinion by tweeting a cropped email and a simple, but also misleading, declarative statement.

Shachtman said Siegel sent “several” emails to my team.

This is untrue.

Siegel only sent the two that Shachtman publicly displayed in his tweet.

As a person that works with words, Shachtman knows full well the difference between “two” and “several”.

And as reporters, both Siegel and Shachtman know the very real difference between “declined comment” and “did not respond”

But for those that may not know the difference:

“Declined to comment” indicates that you spoke with me and I actively chose not to answer your question.

“Did not respond” means I didn’t even give your interview the time of day.

Both those statements have very real and very different connotations. Every journalist knows this.

Side note: If a reporter attempts to bully you into giving them a response by threatening to say you did something that you didn’t do—just let them bury themselves.

Funny how Siegel didn’t seem to do that with other people that “didn’t respond” for her article.

I wonder why…🧐

Was Siegel:

A) still mad that THR chose to run Masters’ story over hers?

B) grinding an axe with those she feels are responsible for exposing/firing of her friends at Warner, thereby reducing her access to scoops?

C) desperate for clicks to keep RS happy?

It doesn’t matter.

What DOES matter is that if you attempt to minimize or delegitimize (in any way) the very real and serious trauma that the participants of the Justice League investigation endured—I will respond.

It may not be how and when you want me to—but I will certainly respond.

In closing: As Siegel’s few remaining Warner “sources” continue to evaporate with the Discovery merger—we can only hope that her shady, old Hollywood, access media, quid pro quo tactics go with them.

Because Hollywood won’t change until those that report on Hollywood do.

A>E