Start-ups fail. But when that happens, is it really necessary to rehash the entire past of those involved -- especially when it appears that none of it is relevant to the failure?

Armand Rousso was associated with one start-up that has run into difficulty. But when the New York Times chose to cover those problems, the article's writer chose to dredge up every bit of salacious gossip in Ruosso's past. Parts of it were of questionable accuracy, and some of it downright prejudicial. Fortunately, I also found the Armand Rousso response to NYT story by Saul Hansell at his blog.

For example, a criminal conviction eight years in the past was characterized as "recent" -- and despite the judge's recognition that Ruosso's misdeeds were out of character and that his overall past and present were those of a responsible citizen. Similarly, the author made vague and unsubstantiated hints of financial impropriety regarding Ruosso's wife (who had served as CEO of the company prior to their marriage). But a close examination shows there is no "there" there. The author couldn't even get the facts straight regarding how Ruosso's fees were paid. This is just sloppy reporting -- and it appears that the New York Times is unwilling to correct it.

Maybe most troubling to me is the fact thet Hansell tries to tar Ruosso with the misconduct of others. he was investigated and cleared in a campaign finance case -- but a partner was convicted of wrong-doing. Now I don't like the candidate in question (Robert Torricelli) or Ruosso's apparent association with the Clintons -- but this kind of slimy journalism is too egregious to ignore. When one is investigated and cleared, it seems wrong to me to impute guilt.

Posted by: Greg at 08:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.