Similarly, the article notes that Gillibrand was “one of five” Davis Polk lawyers designated to train Philip Morris employees about “sensitive legal issues.” But again, Gillibrand’s scarlet A is more reductively illustrated by the assertion that “she was viewed so positively by Philip Morris”—that’s the more sordid detail, if you will.
In other words, the reporters bolster the details they uncovered through document reviews and interviews with statements that suggest an understanding of Gillibrand’s motivations while at Davis Polk—and those serve as a detriment to the researched facts that the story presents.
If the object in Gillibrand’s rearview mirror is in fact larger than it appears, then such guilt-by-association tactics—effectively conflating the actions of a young, ambitious lawyer with the un-provable desire to defend an unsavory corporate client—are not the way to do it. The Times story seems to hinge on the fact that this previous employment is politically inconvenient for Gillibrand, who will defend her Senate seat next year—and builds a character portrait that exceeds the facts on display.
You assert that "there are some legitimate reasons why Gillibrand wouldn’t want to be defined by her role in defending an exceedingly unpopular client. For one, it was a job early in her career, and who doesn’t have some things on their resume that, in hindsight, are less than ideal?"
This statement paints with a broad brush an issue that deserves much deeper scrutiny than you give it.
First, as the Times makes clear with hard facts, Senator Gillbrand represented the world's leading cigarette company for several years. That's meaningful.
Second, and perhaps more important, Kirsten Gillibrand had a choice. You selectively quoted only part of a key passage from the Times, which wrote: “Of course, many lawyers, including some who now serve in the Senate, have defended unpopular clients. Still, in an approach that was not uncommon at law firms that represented tobacco companies, lawyers at Davis Polk were permitted to decline work on the tobacco cases if they had a moral or ethical objection to the work.”
Again, Kirsten Gillibrand had a choice. The Times asked whether she had any misgivings about representing Big Tobacco. She declined to be interviewed, and her spokesman dodged the question. She is either ashamed of what she did, afraid that most people recognize that it was unsavory and/or worried that if she may have to explain why she still accepts a lot of campaign money from Big Tobacco.
#1 Posted by Tina Komers, CJR on Sat 28 Mar 2009 at 04:16 PM
You assert that "there are some legitimate reasons why Gillibrand wouldn’t want to be defined by her role in defending an exceedingly unpopular client. For one, it was a job early in her career, and who doesn’t have some things on their resume that, in hindsight, are less than ideal?"
This statement paints with a broad brush an issue that deserves much deeper scrutiny than you give it.
First, as the Times makes clear with hard facts, Senator Gillbrand represented the world's leading cigarette company for several years. That's meaningful.
Second, and perhaps more important, Kirsten Gillibrand had a choice. You selectively quoted only part of a key passage from the Times, which wrote: “Of course, many lawyers, including some who now serve in the Senate, have defended unpopular clients. Still, in an approach that was not uncommon at law firms that represented tobacco companies, lawyers at Davis Polk were permitted to decline work on the tobacco cases if they had a moral or ethical objection to the work.”
Again, Kirsten Gillibrand had a choice. The Times asked whether she had any misgivings about representing Big Tobacco. She declined to be interviewed, and her spokesman dodged the question. She is either ashamed of what she did, afraid that most people recognize that it was unsavory and/or worried that if she may have to explain why she still accepts a lot of campaign money from Big Tobacco.
#2 Posted by Tina Komers, CJR on Sat 28 Mar 2009 at 04:20 PM
So, the NYT is looking towards the 2010 Dem primary. Guess who they want to win that one? Count the favorable Andrew Cuomo stories and the unfavorable Kirsten Gillibrand ones..........see who comes out ahead. They're really being fairly obvious on this matter.
#3 Posted by bb, CJR on Sat 28 Mar 2009 at 09:36 PM
Dear Ms. Kim:
Given the amount of ghost advocate e-ink generated by PR flacks online, it would be useful if you could provide ANY biographical information about yourself, including full disclosure of any internships, interests, conflicts, etc., that might be material to your remarkable op-ed. As it happens, (and, as Tina Komers, who demonstrates lucid reasoning in her response, infers,) we all have choices. Posting CJR staff biographies would be the professional thing to do in any event.
#4 Posted by David St.-Lascaux, CJR on Sun 29 Mar 2009 at 07:24 PM
I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. I'm no supporter of my new senator but thought the Times article/editorial was despicable on two counts. Firstly, it was, as you say, loaded with words and phrases making it clear that the reporters thought she had done something wrong. The story strayed far from the concept of allowing the reader to make his or her own decision after reading the facts that the reporters had done an admirable job in gathering. Secondly, I (and I realize this is arguable) really do believe that any defendant is entitled to an excellent defense and see nothing objectionable in Ms. Gillibrand having represented her client effectively. There was nothing in the story to suggest that she stepped over any ethical boundary in her representation of Phillip Morris.
#5 Posted by Jerry, CJR on Mon 30 Mar 2009 at 06:21 PM