Magazine Publisher to Free Weekly Columnist: Sour Grapes, Anyone? 

I read with interest Rebecca Wakefield’s June 28 article entitled “The Firm Within the Firm.” The article was full of unanswered questions, so it led me to some questions of my own.

Wakefield called Miami Monthly a City Hall-friendly publication. Did that mean that we have access to City Hall? If that is the case, then I agree. We have always believed, as most journalists do, that having access to the powers-that-be can contribute to expeditious verification of stories and even provide content for new ones.

I am baffled as to why she wrote that “it stinks” that Miami Monthly magazine’s July issue featured the city’s corruption scandal on its cover. Is the Miami Herald the only publication in town entitled to or capable of printing those stories? One would have thought she would have been proud that the local magazine got the info and scooped the Herald. Perhaps in her opinion a “glad-rag,” as she calls us, shouldn’t publish meaty investigative articles such as we did.

 Then Wakefield states as fact that “city officials chose to leak a story like this to a small monthly magazine...” Firstly, since she did not call us to inquire about or verify any information for her story, we know that she absolutely has no clue who our sources were. Secondly, we’re not as small as she states. We posses the largest circulation of any magazine in Miami, printing 51,000 copies per month, independently audited. We might be small in staff for a city magazine, but not in scope or distribution.

Why would a reporter write a story full of questions full of negative innuendo and not fact? Why not call or e-mail the subjects of the article for answers and then maybe get the real story?

One would think Wakefield would have appreciated the fact that our story (12 pages long, not 6 as she states) was extremely informative; it even contributed content to her story. We worked on this story for months, and provided our readers content far beyond what was distributed at the State Attorney’s press conference, which is what the rest of the media published or aired.

One would think Wakefield might have taken the opportunity to commend us for doing a good job, unless she is disturbed by the fact that we scooped the Miami Herald on timing and content. Had the SunPost broken the story, I would have been genuinely proud —small companies like Miami Monthly and the SunPost do not have the budget of a major market daily like the Herald, to afford to put a couple of reporters on a story for months on end.

So when we actually take that extra step, and get a good one, we shouldn’t be talked about disparagingly, but rather acknowledged, or just simply read and enjoyed. I’m sorry to let you down since there was no conspiracy theory on this one, just a little luck and a lot of hard work.

Elena V. Carpenter
Publisher, Miami Monthly

 

Allow Me to Introduce Myself: I Don’t Work for Collectors, I Was Not Fired From Selecta Magazine and I’m Not Motivated By Resentment 

Given the SunPost article [“Accreditation at Risk,” published June 21] a number of issues merits your kind attention:

(1) I do not work for collectors. Actually, I do not work: I write. It has been my great blessing to be able to stay selective of the projects I undertake. Your source may have seen me in art fairs with artists, former neighbors from the Upper Eastside, friends, gallery owners, and whomever asks me for information. I do not sell art nor live from commissions. I am not a peddler. Can you tell me the name of the collectors you allege I have guided through fairs?

(2) In my early 20s, fresh from Cambridge, I worked a few months for Selecta. This was a period when legendary Catalan journalist Eduardo Pages wanted to turn a young magazine that he saw with potential into a Carteles or Vanity Fair in Spanish. At that time, Ms. Bulnes moved from a little place on Calle Ocho and the 40s to the Grand. I opened Palm Beach for her publication: the Palm Beach Polo, the Palm Beach Piano Competition, the annual Red Cross Ball under Geza von Habsburg (a friend and true royal from the Austrian imperial line). I wrote about the Norton Museum. I covered from a private spot (gift of the grandmother of a classmate) the match played by Prince Charles in Wellington when he traveled accompanied by Princess Diana. I wrote about socialite Celia Lipton Farris. I wrote about the major restaurants. I knew about these places from my Harvard classmates, New York friends and from the time my grandmother flew from Cuba to, for example, La Petite Marmite on Worth Avenue. I still keep a glowing letter of recommendation from Mr. Pages when I left Selecta. I was never terminated! Are you ready to write the SunPost correcting your ill informed remark?

(3) Your hypothesis-building is very poor, Ms. Camber. I would like to know who is paying me to engage in crusades against you or the so-called princess, Mrs. Goldman. Would I even accept the money for something as low? Why? Did they teach you about the Occam’s razor, Ms. Camber, in Barnard? They apparently did not teach you that Louis XVI died in 1793 and could not have met with an ancestor of Mrs. Goldman in 1812. Occam’s razor teaches you to accept the simplest rational explanation: I believe institutions should function ethically and comme il faut. I believe curators should do research on the objects they are going to show and have the proper documentation to show for it. I have correspondence from the Bass showing there is no documentation about the Jade Collection’s provenance. I believe curators should take a trip, every so often, to the library, and engage in scholarly research before accepting the legitimacy of someone who claims a grandfather who died in 1855. N’est-ce pas?

(4) Your hypothesis about resentment being my motivation is in rather poor taste. It really gets the discussion into the territory of feelings and not facts. Do not treat the reading public as your analyst. I would much rather stay out of the realm of feelings and concentrate in your lack of relevant facts and the falsehoods you have spread about my person and that you need to retract at once. 

Justo J. Sanchez

Coral Gables

 

Marc “Nixon” Sarnoff: Destroying His Opponents and Compiling His Enemies List 

I was disappointed to see that Mr. Sarnoff continued his harassment campaign by distributing the correspondence between the two of us relating to Johnny Winton [Murmurs, “The Saga Continues: Sarnoff vs. Haskins,” published June 21]. I am not sure whether he gave you the entire piece, so I have now attached it for your records.

Everyone is entitled to their view. Everyone is entitled to express their view without fearing that an organized hate campaign will result. I would think that no one would be surprised that I am not a supporter of Mr. Sarnoff. His actions on this matter and on others have only affirmed my lack of support. I don’t think it is appropriate for a public official to launch intimidation campaigns. Who knows who might be the next target? Certainly the whole district cannot be lock-step in their beliefs with his? If he did not intend to launch an intimidation campaign, why did he encourage it, as quoted in your column? If he did not intend to launch an intimidation campaign, why did he say in his e-mail to me “Just be prepared for the backlash of anyone who wishes to address or redress you for doing so, and the opinions that you espouse to sway the Governor’s decision?” If he did not intend to launch an intimidation campaign, why did he distribute our correspondence, after saying at one point, “You and I are just having a discussion?” If he did not intend to launch an intimidation campaign, why did he personally file the public records request to get the information on people who supported Winton and then have selected letters e-mail blasted?

What I do not understand is why he continues these actions. Is he that vindictive or insecure? Does he think I would consider running for office again – what’s to worry about that? He beat me handily. I have no intention of going back into politics. Insecure, vindictive – neither are good attributes for an elected official. Distributing communication (i.e. our e-mail exchange) that was intended to be private is a secondary problem, but indicative of a person’s character.

And I do not believe this is an isolated incident. At a recent commission meeting, on the record, Commissioner Joe Sanchez accused Mr. Sarnoff’s chief of staff of staff of threatening an organization that they would not get funding for a façade program if the head of the organization did not support Mr. Sarnoff’s attempt to replace Commissioner Sanchez as chair of the Downtown Development Authority. Threatening defunding if there is opposition? Is it a great leap to imagine quid pro quo in exchange for support? There have been many rumors of other similar incidents. But, even without the rumors, the Winton and DDA incidents cause me to be concerned about the man. Enemies lists and intimidation are not appropriate tools for elected officials. I learned that at a young age when Richard Nixon was our president. I supported Mr. Winton and do not hide from it. Despite all the criticism of Mr. Winton, some of which I concur with, in the seven years I have been associated with the city and known Johnny, nothing came close to these examples of politics of personal destruction perpetrated at the behest of Mr. Sarnoff.

Linda Haskins

Miami

 

EEEEE! Wrong Writer. Please, Guess Again

Dear editors,

Regarding Michelle Weinberg’s article “Conditional Love,” published May 31, George Baker didn’t write the essay for the exhibition’s catalog. He authored only the quote at the end of the text. Looking again at the layout of the publication, it’s easy to see how the entire text could be mistakenly attributed to Baker.

Gean Moreno

[Editor’s Note: Gean Moreno is a writer and curator of “Conditions of Display,” where the essay was displayed.]

 

Mold: A Convenient Red Herring Used By an Ousted Board Member

I own an investment apartment at the Octagon Towers, and I was shocked to see the picture of the building in full color, front page splendor, covered in mold, clearly implying that the Octagon was indeed riddled with mold; nothing could be farther from the truth [“The Fungus Among Us,” published June 14]. In addition, your story does not mention the fact that the woman complaining about the mold in her apartment is a former board member, who was recalled in December. At that time, it was more that two years since Hurricane Wilma, and she and the rest of the members of her board had failed to get around to installing the windows. She was not at that time in the process of suing herself and her fellow board members. The old board, however, was being sued by members of the association.

The new board has been in their leadership capacity for less than six months. If you check, you will see that the type of mold she is taking about is common in the outdoors, especially when you are near water, as we are near the Dade Blvd. Canal; it can float right through your window. There are also other salient facts which you should get from the board. There is a very good story at the Octagon, just not the one you printed.

I do not know how you retract a picture, but may I suggest you have it redone with all the mold falling away from the building, on the front page, in the same splendid color, as the first one, and state that if anyone interpreted the picture as implying the building was riddled with mold, it was not your intention, and you have no evidence that would imply any such thing and certainly would not want the picture to do damage to the property values of Octagon Owners.

Thank you,

Andrea Silverthorne

Miami Beach

 

Mold: The Story Corporate America Doesn’t Want Told

Dear Angie,

Thanks for the June 14 story on the “Fungus Among Us.”

If you pursue the story, it is a big one. Mold disease is hard to diagnose and masquerades as behavior problems, ALS, MS and leads to general immune dysfunction, exacerbating most other conditions. Often diagnosis of mold induced disease is made only on autopsy and is most often missed.

New standard for interior construction is pressboard. Pressboard contains the bark of trees and mold spores. When contaminated with moisture (leak in roof - plumbing problem - hurricane), mold grows silently. More expensive plywood contains no bark or spores.

Rather than fix the problem, they are trying to “kill the messenger.” Corporate construction industry and insurance industry are colluding and using government agencies to head off giant liability problem. Mold researchers are losing grants. CDC reports are watered down.

Immunosciences laboratory in Beverly Hills, CA had innovative tests that were being successfully used in court. This squeaky clean lab came under withering scrutiny from regulatory agencies and now no longer offers the test in the interest of peacefully still staying in business. Maybe the story is too dangerous for the whistle blower?

 

Respectfully,

Steven N. Green, DDS

Miami

 

Upper Eastside Drama: Events Worthy of Being Covered By The Media

In Murmurs’ recent rant on Miami politics referencing three neighborhood groups that pulled out of the Upper Eastside Miami Council [Murmurs, “More Drama,” published June 21], UEMC President Allison Warren is quoted as saying, “They do stuff like that to deliberately cause a stir where it is not necessarily necessary. If I were a press person I am not sure I would care.”

The weight of any “representative” organization certainly does need to be questioned when three neighborhoods pull out of their self-proclaimed jurisdiction on the grounds that they do not represent the community.

At a recent neighborhood meeting, Ms. Warren introduced herself as, “most people just call me the bitch.” There you go.

Thank you, Murmurs, for caring.

Sean-Paul Melito

Miami