|
CounterPunch
October
9, 2002
The New York
Times, Salon, Enron and Me
by JASON LEOPOLD
For nearly a year, I have been investigating Army
Secretary Thomas White's role in Enron's demise, specifically,
whether he was aware of the financial machinations that went
on in the division he ran, Enron Energy Services, and if he took
part in a scheme to make the unit look profitable when it wasn't.
I had already written several stories
on what Thomas White knew for The Nation, Salon and Dow Jones
Newswires, where I worked for two years as Los Angeles bureau
chief. But in late July I hit the jackpot. During a conversation
I had with an Enron source, I was told several emails were sent
to White in 2000 and early 2001 by former executives of EES,
warning him that EES was losing cash on many of the divisions
energy contracts.
"Close a bigger deal. Hide the loss
before the 1Q," one email response from White to an Enron
underling read. Another email from White to EES' sales team said
contracts should be closed a month before Enron reports its quarterly
earnings. Was this a smoking gun? I wasn't sure yet. White had
testified before a Senate committee in mid-July that EES was
not a money losing venture and that he did not take part in any
financial shenanigans or misleads investors. I phoned several
other EES sources I cultivated during the past year to find out
whether they were aware of these emails written by White to an
EES sales executive saying that losses should be hidden by signing
larger contracts.
Here's what one source told me. "I
definitely new of the e-mail," one source said. "I
had been told about it from by boss and others. The e-mail is
definitely authentic and that I heard about it from too many
people for it not to be true."
This started getting interesting. I felt
I was about to uncover the biggest story of my career. Still,
I called another source and then another-- 24 in all--to get
to find out exactly what the emails meant and to put it into
context. One source, a former high-level exeecutive at EES who
worked on many of the division's energy contracts, explained
it to me in a language that was not so easy to understand. He
said he had copies of energy contracts EES entered into with
Eli Lilly, the Indiana-based pharmaceutical company, Owens Corning
and Quaker Oats. The contracts, however, all of which were signed
by White and included details about the accounting mechanisms
EES would employ to create illusory profits, showed for the first
time what White knew and when he knew it. For one, the Eli Lilly
contract showed EES booking multimillion profits even though
the unit paid $50 million in cash to Lilly to sign the deal.
That contract also, for the first time, contained details of
a secret partnership between the two companies and showed, in
black and white, that EES was nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.
Enron said in a press release in 2001 that the Lilly contract
was worth $1.3 billion. The documents I obtained said it was
worth about $600 million and if EES ever saw any money from the
deal it would likely be a little more than $100 million because
the company would split profits with Lilly, 70/30.
The Quaker Oats contract showed how EES
would book profits for doing nothing more than changing light
bulbs and chillers. The Owens Corning contract contained details
of another secret partnership between the two companies.
White's fingerprints were all over the
60-plus pages of documents I obtained over the course of two
weeks of investigative work. Not only was his name on the memos
and his signature on the approval sheets, but he actually wrote
a couple of memos himself telling employees how these deals would
hide any existing losses incurred by EES. Moreover, the documents
showed the bonuses White received by getting his sales team to
close the deals. Several other sources spent days explaining
to me the accounting tricks the division used to book profits,
the quarterly floor meetings held by White, the arcane military
terms White used to describe an elite team of EES executives,
and his knowledge that EES was losing millions of dollars a day
from energy contracts in California and a few other states.
The emails I mentioned now made sense.
I now felt like I had a story, a HUGE
story. I approached Salon with the story and explained the details
of what I had uncovered with Salon's Washington bureau chief.
I had already written five investigative pieces on Enron for
Salon and felt a sense of loyalty to the news organization.
Salon's bureau chief, whom I'd rather
not identify by name in this story, was excited. We both felt
this story that would finally show that White knew full-well
that the division was losing money, that the energy contracts
were highly suspect and money losers and we had the documents
to back it up.
I faxed the documents to Salon, including
the smoking-gun emails, and more than a dozen emails my sources
had sent me while we were communicating about the story. One
EES source actually created a chart on his computer so I could
understand how the questionable accounting practices worked.
I still have all of those emails stored on my hard-drive.
I confirmed the authenticity of the documents--minus
the emails--through Enron, Eli Lilly, Quaker Oats and Owens Corning.
Enron could not confirm the authenticity of the eemails. So I
called the Pentagon. I asked Major Mike Halbig, a spokesman for
White, about the emails sent to the Army Secretary and whether
he could discuss it with me. Halbig told me it was time to move
on, that White had already testified, and that there was nothing
more to say.
"Yes but you don't understand I
am writing a story about the emails, the documents and that Secretary
White told one employee to hide losses," I said. Halbig
would not address the emails or the documents per se. He repeated
his general comment. I told this to Salon and we felt that we
had told White's camp exactly what we were going to write and
that they turned down the opportunity to respond.
Now it was time to write. It took me
two weeks to write this story largely because the documents were
written in accounting jargon and I needed someone to help me
put it into plain English. I sent copies of the documents to
tax attorneys, accounting firms, analysts and academics. They
all gave me the same short answer. "Wow. Enron really pushed
the envelope. How did their accountants let them get away with
this?"
Thankfully, the experts did explain everything
to me in plain English. I used one of their comments in the body
of my story. While I wrote the story, Salon poured over the documents.
No one had any questions.
"Are you sure?" I asked.
"Do the emails look OK? Do you understand
everything in there?" I asked again.
"Yes," the bureau chief said
to me over the phone.
We had even talked about posting all
of the documents on the Salon's website, including the emails,
but Salon's managing editor said, "it's so easy to forge
an email it's not worth it."
In addition, we didn't want to give up
to others in the media the fruits of our labor. This was one
month of intense investigative work and posting the documents
would just make it easier for others to write their own story
without crediting Salon.
About three different drafts of the story
were passed back and forth via email. We finally settled on one,
about 4,000 words.
It was a good read. My biggest story.
I patted myself on the back. So did Salon.
We debated when we should post the story.
The Senate was on summer break and not many politicos were in
Washington D.C. We considered posting it after Labor Day but
we were all worried that another news organization could scoop
us. It's a chance we didn't want to take. After sitting on the
story for a week, Salon posted it on Aug. 29. No one seemed to
notice. We sent copies of the story out to everyone in the media
and influential government officials--at least Salon did. No
one bit. That story was in cyberspace for more than a week and
no one noticed.
That didn't bother me. I was simply proud
to have written the story. I was proud that as a journalist I
told the truth. I was already on to the next story, which says
a lot about my personality.
About a week after the story was published
I got a call from Salon's bureau chief telling me to expect a
call from New York Times op-ed columnist Paul Krugman. He was
"very interested" in learning more about the White
story and was considering using it for a future column.
"Krugman's no bullshit," the
Salon bureau chief said. "So send him whatever he asks for.
Any documents he wants give to him."
"Fine. Consider it done," I
said.
Ten minutes after my phone conversation
with Salon's bureau chief I got a call from Krugman.
"My first question is why did you
write this for Salon?" Krugman asked. "Nobody ever
picks up anything from Salon."
I was defensive. I told him that I was
loyal to Salon. Truth is, I had phoned The New Republic and some
other publications about the story. I'm sure the editors at those
publications are breathing a sigh of relief that they didn't
have me write the story for them."
"Well, you know this is an issue
that's very dear to my heart," Krugman said.
"I know," I responded.
Krugman then asked me how I got the documents,
how I cultivated these sources and I explained to him that I
had been writing about Enron for two years. I told him I wrote
more than 2,000 stories on California's energy crisis in the
two years I worked for Dow Jones and wrote about 200 stories
on Enron beginning last October. I told him I left Dow Jones
in April to write a book on the energy crisis and in-between
I was still writing about Enron.
He asked me to fax him the documents.
I did. And that was the beginning of a two-week correspondence
with Krugman about this story. My job was to simply fax him the
documents. What he did from there was up to him and The New York
Times. He did ask me several questions about the material and
I sent him copies of my most recent emails from sources that
helped to answer some of those questions.
On Sept. 17, Krugman's column "Cronies
in Arms" appeared in the New York Times. The first paragraph
mentioned the email.
Krugman credited me. That's when all
hell broke loose.
Despite the story being out for three
weeks, no one saw it. I must have received 50 phone calls from
the Washington Post, ABC News and the BBC to members of Congress
and the Senate. Everyone wanted these documents Krugman spoke
about in his column. I was completely unprepared and overwhelmed.
Salon celebrated the moment. Salon's managing editor Scott Rosenberg
mentioned the Krugman reference of the Salon story in his blog.
I agreed to fax the documents to ABC
News and the Washington Post based on promises Salon had made
with the news organizations to provide the news agencies with
the material in order for them to write their own story. Of course,
they said they would mention Salon so that was a big selling
point for, well, Salon.
However, the high-fives quickly came
to an end. I got a call two days after Krugman's column ran from
the Salon bureau chief saying he received a call from the Financial
Times claiming I "plagiarized" seven paragraphs from
a story the paper wrote in February about the Quaker Oats contract
EES signed.
I was well aware of the FT article. The
EES source that sent me copies of the Quaker contract told me
I should read the February story the FT wrote to understand how
EES booked profits from the Quaker contract. In my original story
for Salon, I credited the FT three times. I did, in fact, use
seven paragraphs from the FT story in my story. But I could have
sworn I credited everything I wrote about that deal to the FT.
I mean why would I credit a story only to then try and pass off
elements of the very same story as my own work?
My first response to the Salon bureau
chief was that the FT was wrong. I was convinced I had written
the story first and that the FT stole it from me. As a wire reporter
covering the California energy crisis and Enron's bankruptcy,
the FT and many, many other publications took my wire copy, rewrote
it, and slapped their bylines on it. But I wasn't just your run-of-the-mill
wire reporter. I had exclusive; one of a kind, not to be found
elsewhere, stories on Enron. An example of this is a story I
wrote on Enron's phony trading floor that appeared first on Dow
Jones Newswires and then with my byline in the Wall Street Journal.
A Reuters reporter actually reported the same story two weeks
later as if it was his own. I also was one of three reporters
who were given exclusive access to interview Jeff Skilling, Enron's
former chief executive, last December. That story also ran in
several newspapers under other bylines.
I found what appeared to be a story I
wrote on the Quaker deal while I was at Dow Jones three weeks
before the FT story. I had a copy of the story. But we couldn't
find it in the Dow Jones archives. Was this some sort of conspiracy?
I wondered. Still, I did credit the FT in the original story,
albeit not properly. I believe one is guilty of plagiarism if
there is intent to steal another person's work and pass it off
as your own. This was clearly not the case. Salon felt Krugman
should be aware of the FT claims. The Salon bureau chief called
Krugman to tell him the news. Here's what Krugman said to me
about it in an email when it was first brought to his attention
on Sept. 23. "I should tell you that Salon let me know about
the FT flap, and it's clear no harm was intended, or done. I
can see exactly how it happened. Someday someone will notice
that the title of my book, "The age of diminished expectations",
was unconsciously borrowed from Christopher Lasch," Krugman
wrote in his email to me.
This guy is a class act.
Salon, in the meantime, was trying to
locate the story I said I wrote while I was at Dow Jones. But
this was moot. I intentionally used the FT story because of how
well the paper did in explaining the Quaker contract. That's
why I credited the paper three times in the original piece. Salon
simply should have said this and printed a correction. Instead,
the paper alluded to the fact that I was a plagiarist.
The correction forced Salon to start
looking at the White story even more closely. I don't know if
Salon was under further pressure, say from politicians in Washington
or members of the right-wing media, but clearly something else
was going on here.
I was no longer in their good graces.
Around this time, White had also sent
a letter to the editor of the New York Times claiming he was
unaware of any email authored by him that directed an EES employee
to hide losses by signing bigger contracts. Here's what Krugman
said about White's letter in an email to me.
"White has sent a pretty poor letter
to the NYT in which he says that "I do not recall saying
or writing anything close to the quote"; he acts as if your
Salon article was never published, too," Krugman wrote in
his email.
I thought White's letter was interesting
because it left open the possibility that he did write the letter
and may have said something to the effect of hiding losses because
White used the words "recall" and "close."
The media, many of whom admitted to me
they never even read my Salon piece, seized upon the email and
questioned its authenticity directly to Salon. Salon questioned
the authenticity of the email to me, three weeks after the story
was published and nearly two months after the documents had been
in Salon's possession.
The bureau chief at Salon, without my
knowledge, called my source that wrote the email and sent it
to me and confronted this person in an antagonistic way, my source
told me later. He denied ever speaking with me. He did this because
he believed Salon was going to reveal his identity and because
he told me to keep his name out of the story. Salon called several
they of my sources to verify the veracity of the Tom White story
and the email. Some of my sources, which knew of the email, verified
its authenticity. My sources went a step further and confirmed
every element of my story and even explained to Salon why former
Enron employees won't speak to members of the media unless they
know and trust that person. There is a real sense of paranoia
among former Enron employees. Some believe if they talk to certain
people in the media they will be subpoenaed by the government.
To further help Salon authenticate the
story and the email, I sent more than 20 pages of phone bills,
which show that I phoned my sources, particularly the source
that sent me the email. Still, that was not good enough. Frankly,
Salon became very confrontational and threatening toward me.
Naturally, I became defensive.
Salon removed the Tom White story from
its website the same day that Howard Kurtz of the Washington
Post and New York Times media reporter Felicity Barringer called
Salon and said they were going to write a story on the correction
Salon ran about the FT issue. A note from Salon's editors said
they could not authenticate the email and that I was a plagiarist
as the reason for removing the story. Meanwhile, I credited the
FT but no one was listening.
I called Barringer and it became clear
that she was going to write a story on me questioning my credibility
and integrity as a journalist. She claimed she had spoken to
several news organizations I had written stories for during the
past six months and that none of them would work with me again.
What did I do? How could this be? I have
written for CBS Marketwatch, Associated Press, Reuters, The Nation,
In These Times, but none ever told me that they never wanted
me to write for them again.
I truly thought I was being set up. Why?
I don't know. I suppose I have angered many people with the Enron
stories I have published. I don't doubt that people would love
to see my hands broken so I can never type another word on Enron.
But I had one last beacon of hope, Krugman.
The week Salon removed the White story
Krugman called me from Tokyo to ask for my help. He said he was
told by Times editors that if I reveal my sources to him, specifically
the person who sent me the email, then he could write a column
saying he independently verified my story and everything is true.
I revealed my sources to Paul Krugman,
including the person who sent me the email. He spoke to each
and every one of my sources and verified their employment with
Enron through W-2 documents they faxed to him. In addition, he
verified the authenticity of the email by speaking directly with
the person who sent it.
I took these unusual steps to reveal
my sources to Krugman and provided him with documents because
the Times editorial board told him that if he could get me to
do that then he could write a column that defends me and state
that he independently verified everything. This was a painstaking
process, having to convince more than a dozen sources to speak
up, albeit in defense of me and confirm the authenticity of documents,
particularly the email. However, when Krugman informed his editors
and the editorial board of the NYT that he had independently
secured confirmation from all of my sources and verified the
authenticity of the email, the Times him that he was "going
to have to take a bullet for the company" and "take
it like a man" and print a correction because "he was
too much of a lightning rod."
Despite all of the verification provided
to Krugman he could still not write a column in support of my
story, the documents mentioned, or reveal to readers that he
spoke to my sources. Krugman, to his credit, did everything in
his power to get the Times editorial board to allow him to write
the column he wanted regarding the Tom White email. They would
not budge. Now the Times has put me into a position where I can
no longer win the trust of my sources because they broke their
promise to me. Had the Times told Krugman or me their plans for
never honoring the agreement, I would have never revealed my
sources to the paper. This clearly became an issue for the Times
to pursue a salacious story about me rather than pursue the story
itself, which is Thomas White, whether he wrote this email and
if he knew that Enron was imploding.
The story the Times wrote about me was
nothing more than a way to ensure I never work again as a journalist.
The story, written by David Carr, who was put on the story because
Barringer had another "important" assignment, suggests
that I am a reckless journalist because of a correction that
ran in the Wall Street Journal in March, a week before I resigned.
I started at Dow Jones Newswires as bureau
chief in April 2000. At that time, the California energy crisis
was just two months away. My job was covering the energy industry.
When the crisis hit in California I went into overdrive. In my
two years at Dow Jones, I wrote 2,000 stories, was credited with
being the leader on coverage of the energy crisis and won the
company's journalist of the year award in my first eight months
at the company for my coverage of the crisis.
When the Enron debacle began, I was put
on a number of investigative stories. One story that received
widespread play was an article I wrote about Enron's phony trading
floor. My point is this: Yes, the correction the NYT mentioned
in the article is true. It was a major correction. Huge. The
biggest of my career. But guess what? It was the only one in
my two years at Dow Jones. Out of 2,000 stories I wrote in two
years only one correction ran. I misread documents and so did
the WSJ fact checkers. We had to issue a correction. When I resigned
from Dow Jones to pursue a book, the company offered me more
money to stay.
I left Dow Jones because I did not want
to work in a corporate environment like that anymore. I wanted
to pursue a career writing books. That too is now in doubt.
Carr knew all of this. He was aware that
I wrote 2,000 stories while at Dow Jones. I even sent him my
performance reviews, which were impeccable. I sent him copies
of emails from Dow Jones CEO Peter Kann congratulating me on
my work covering Enron.
But Carr didn't care. He was going to
do a hatchet job on me no matter what and he took the whole thing
about the WSJ correction out of context. In addition, in one
of the worst breaches of journalistic ethics, Carr revealed the
identity of my source by name without my permission or my source's
permission.
When I asked Krugman to explain how this
happened here is what he said to me in a series of emails.
"My fault. I am sick to my stomach.
The email I sent, on which you had scratched out the name, was
apparently still legible. I should have marked it off better.
I am incredibly sorry, and will do anything at all to help,"
read one Krugman email.
"All along, I was trying to help.
I have clearly fucked up in earnest. Give me any lead, and I
will work on trying to clear your name," said another email.
"I have screwed up very seriously.
The story was that (Times Washington reporter Richard) Oppel
initiallyquestioned me, and said that you were not responding
to calls. I shared the email with him, but thought I had an understanding
that he would not use it, and certainly not reveal the hidden
name. It's just a terrible thing. I am trying to think what can
be done," said another.
That was my last correspondence with
Krugman. The Times won't return my phone calls, they won't print
my letter to the editor and they won't explain what happened.
Worst of all, Carr, whose story on me was about my so-called
track record with printing corrections got my title wrong. He
said I was a Los Angeles correspondent for Dow Jones. I was,
in fact, the Los Angeles bureau chief. I managed three reporters.
Carr, not suprisingly, won't print a correction.
Since Monday, I have spoken to a dozen
journalists who are curious about what went on behind the scenes
at Salon and the New York Times. This has become some sort of
bizarre circus sideshow. No one has even tried to follow up on
the Tom White story and look into the fact that there may be
a great deal of evidence out there that supports the theory that
Thomas White may have been responsible--and aware--of many of
the financial machinations that went on at the division he was
co-chairman of, Enron Energy Services. This is a sad time for
journalism. Here we have a high-ranking official in the White
House who may or may not be involved and have great knowledge
of one of the biggest bankruptcies in American history. Instead,
the media would rather eat their own.
To all the naysayers out there, I dare
you to get off your asses and pound the pavement. Until then,
don't judge me.
Jason Leopold
can be reached at: jasonleopold@hotmail.com
Yesterday's Features
Hesham Hassaballa
Here
We Go Again:
Rev. Falwell's Slurs
Ann Pettifer
Brainwashing
in America
Anita Ramasatry
Airline Security Run Amok
Josh Frank
Iraq: It's
About Globalization
Rep. Cynthia McKinney
Iraq:
the Double Standard
Robert Jensen
Bush's
Illogical War Speech
David Vest
Dylan in
Eugene
New
Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- How to Change the Subject: Corporate Scandal and Pension
Reform as Weapons Against Warmongering;
- Padilla's Predecessor: Court Ruling Cites 1904 War
Against Mining Union;
- Adios Hitchens: the Dorian Gray of Our Time;
- Object of Suspicion: How the FBI Watched Janis Ian
From Birth;
- First Carter, Then Clinton,
Now Sen. John Edwards:
Another "New South" Slimeball;
- Corporate Crooks: Nature or Nurture?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|