Paterson v. Bloomberg, Day 2
The day after the Post's Fred Dicker reported that David Paterson called Michael Bloomberg a liar (among several other not-so-nice things), all parties involved are feeling a wee bit defensive today. Bloomberg dismissed suggestion that relations had frayed ("He and I never had an acrimonious relationship"), although Paterson only half-denied it, allowing that Dicker could have heard something to that effect, but that he didn't get the story straight. But Dicker isn't about to let the story go or let anyone cast suspicion on his scoop. Dicker defended his journalistic chops today and even suggests who might have leaked him the info. Oh, and for visually-minded readers, Dicker's article includes a state-of-the-art BS meter. Because you just can't argue with science.
That's right, the governor knows where - as we say in the media business - the story came from. He knows the source is someone who, if their identity were revealed, would be seen as unassailably authoritative on Paterson's political views...
The Post's report was based on a source "with firsthand knowledge of Paterson's comments." Let's see, how many people could that be? Paterson himself? Perhaps Michelle Paterson, the governor's wife, or Charles O'Byrne, the governor's chief of staff? Another possibility is Communications Director Risa Heller. You get the point.
Experienced and tested journalists don't make up stories like this - they don't make up stories at all. They're also prepared to reveal to their top editors who the source of a story is when their own, and their newspaper's, credibility is questioned.
Hear that, Dave? Tussle with Fred and he's going to reveal which one of your staff members is spilling the beans. Or maybe he'll reveal that it was actually you who made the comments. That hazy black object that was sitting on your desk last week, roughly the size of a deck of cards? That was Dicker's tape recorder, silly!
