[Note: The following is the first of three parts of an interview of
Van Brink by Timothy Harper of OnMoney.com. In this first part,
Harper pledges to give Brink a hyperlink upon any ultimate
publication, so that Brink's remarks can be read in context and in
full by readers of Harper's finished article. Harper published on
January 4, 2001 (go to www.OnMoney.com), but no hyperlink was
provided. The entire exchanges between Harper and Brink are provided
here.]


Mr. Harper,

My notes in (((parens))) inserted in the text of your letter of
reply.

Van Brink


Mr. Brink,

Maybe we can find a compromise here, given that my editor cannot
promise to run something before he sees it. Nor would any editor I
know for any publication I've ever worked for. Editors simply don't
give up editorial control to outsiders. The lone exception I can
think of is the Unabomber's manifesto, an entirely different sort of
case.

(((Mr. Harper, I'm not asking for editorial control; only for control
over what words the editor allows to be put in my mouth. Your editor
would be free not to run the piece at all, if in his/her judgment it
was not in good taste, relevant or in the public interest. But if
your editor decides it does make for an interesting perspective to
share with the journal's readers, then I reserve the right to be
quoted accurately and in context.

(((As to the Unibomber "lone exception", I think I have young
memories of Playboy magazine wasting dozens and dozens of valuable
pages that could have been filled with pictures and devoting them
instead to Q&A style interviews – one even with Jimmy Carter. While I
realize I am neither the Unibomber nor Jimmy Carter, I have been
(this year) the featured lead on the front pages of the Wall Street
Journal, the LA Times, the Toronto Globe, the Miami Herald and
several other respected chronicles – can't even remember; lost track
in the blur.)))

How about this: I ask you questions by email, and you answer them. I
write a story that includes some or all of your comments, as written
to me. Once the story appears, you can reply, either in a letter to
the editor posted in onmoney.com or in a public posting on some other
site.

(((Thank you. No. Been down that street (against the advice of
counsel) in full cooperation with Mike Allen (Wall Street Journal)
and provided him with a significant amount of relevant material on
all topics of his interest, none of which were utilized in his haste
to produce a front-page smash and trash piece based on hearsay,
rumor, innuendo, fabrication (all perfectly attributed to others),
out of context quotes and partial quotes from me, etc. If that's
what you want to do, have fun – but I'll sit this one out.)))

Either way, there would be a hyperlink from your name and comments in
my story to the web page(s) with your response. That way you can
respond fully to the story, both to the way your comments are
presented and to any other aspects of my reporting. If you like, you
can post the entire transcript of our dialog, unless the editor has
already posted it.

Does that work?

(((I won't refuse the offer of a hyperlink. Write what you like.
Give me 24 hours to reply for the hyperlink, then go with it. This is
fairer treatment than I've ever been offered, so I won't say "No" to
that.

(((Still, I say "No" to you picking and choosing the context into
which you or your editor(s) have license to insert quotes or partial
quotes from me.

(((Am I unreasonable in this? An acquaintance of mine recently
commented on my recent treatment in the press. Let me quote him in a
perspective he shared on my current treatment by journalists (albeit
comparing it to a specific subject I admittedly know little to
nothing about:

((("Why did BATF serve a search warrant to David Koresh with 60
agents in body armor with guns blazing, when they could have arrested
him
quietly any time he went into town, or simply taken him up on his
offer to come inspect their guns peaceably any time they wished?

((("Answer: because it was all a politically-motivated, budget-
setting-
time publicity stunt, filmed from the get-go, intended to target a
group of religious nuts (with a leader with an eye for jailbait) that
most people would consider as undesirable, and therefore an
acceptable target.

(((I will virtually guarantee you that any offer [you make] to answer
questions or supply information would be ignored, until and unless it
is in the context of answering an indictment. These people do not
want INFORMATION. They want a show trial, a conviction, and an
EXAMPLE. . . . "Just us" rather than "justice" is the goal here.

(((". . . [it] reminds me of an oft-cited quotation from the late
David Koresh. If you'd seen the full taped interview (which few
people have) you'd know that, in answer to a rather fanciful
allegation, he said: `If I got a 70-year-old woman pregnant, then
you'd better watch out,
because I'm God.' Only the last seven words were actually quoted, of
course. Koresh was certainly no saint, let alone being God, but even
such a man as he did not deserve that kind of treatment from the
press. Neither of course does Van Brink. I wish I could say such
treatment was rare for those the government doesn't like. But alas,
it is all too common." (quoted from notes by Julian Cranhay).

(((Am I comparing myself to David Koresh? Perish the thought. I
have become painfully aware, however, that what I grew up believing
about "Truth, justice and the American way" as accurately noted by
mild-mannered reporters in a truthful, free press, really is
something out of the comic books. I would not wish such a personally
and emotionally painful awakening to reality on anyone – not even on
such practicing members of the press.)))

Thanks,
Tim

(((Hope to receive your reasonably agreeable reply. – Van)))