But Solomon wasn’t satisfied that the legal questions had been answered. So he went over Buzenberg’s head—directly to the chair of the board. The board, in turn, hired the media law firm Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz to investigate how Kaplan’s team got the database password and whether using it broke any laws. After this, the simmering tension between Solomon and Kaplan burgeoned into full-scale warfare, and fierce shouting matches began erupting in the newsroom. As Solomon puts it, “Everything went nuclear.”
By late December, the outside lawyers completed their investigation. What they found, according to internal Center documents, was that the reporters had initially gotten the password—along with a downloaded version of the database—from the paid consultant who appeared in the documentary, a Spanish fishing-industry analyst named Roberto Mielgo Bregazzi. Solomon seized on this as proof that Kaplan’s team had resorted to checkbook journalism. “We hacked into a government database with a password we paid for,” he told me. “You can’t do that and call yourself the Center for Public Integrity.” But the reality is not so black and white. Mielgo, who had initially been an unpaid source, was only brought on as a consultant several months after the password changed hands. Obviously, putting a former source on payroll raises questions about motives. But the reporters on the team gave a reasonable explanation for this move: They had relied heavily on Mielgo to help unravel the political and technical complexities of the tuna-fishing industry and guide them to sources in hard-to-penetrate countries like Libya. At some point, it became clear that he was spending a substantial amount of his time responding to their queries.
As for the legality of using the password to access data, the lawyers concluded that, in theory, a prosecutor might argue it violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. But whether it actually did was open to debate. And, in any case, it was highly unlikely that charges would ever be brought.
At this point, the board was apparently satisfied that Kaplan’s team hadn’t made any flagrant missteps. In January 2011, it issued a statement saying, “The board recognizes the outstanding reporting done by ICIJ members: the quality of the reporting, including the bluefin tuna series, remains above question and beyond doubt.” Kaplan, meanwhile, stepped down. As he explained in a memo to the board, he didn’t feel he could go on reporting to Solomon, “given his reprehensible conduct toward ICIJ staff.”
Later that month, Solomon returned from vacation to learn that the board had come out in support of the tuna series—and to find a $15,000 bonus check on his chair. He was livid. “It was hush money,” Solomon told me. “They were trying to buy my silence.” Buzenberg calls these allegations “preposterous and insulting” and says Solomon was given the bonus because he was carrying two titles—executive editor and chief digital officer—without extra pay. Around this time, Solomon also learned that the tuna series had been nominated submitted for a Pulitzer Prize, and he threatened to inform the Pulitzer board about the alleged ethical blemishes unless it was withdrawn, which it was. Solomon then began pushing Buzenberg to rewrite the Center’s ethics rules, and fire or admonish several ICIJ reporters, including Willson. Buzenberg refused.
All the while, the Center plowed ahead with the new business model. A beta version of the new website, known as iWatch, was launched in April 2011. As expected, traffic surged; by the middle of that year, the number of monthly pageviews on the Center’s website climbed from around 300,000 to 1.13 million.*
On the journalism front, the shift toward the daily model brought both pluses and minuses. The Center’s coverage, which in the past had sometimes been plodding and in the weeds, became snappier and more timely. Occasionally, it broke news on fast-moving crises, like the Japanese nuclear meltdown. It was the Center (in partnership with ABC News) that broke the story at the heart of the Solyndra affair.
Solomon is entrepreneurial. Entrepreneurial is FON. He will get more backers. And he will show you.
He will show you all!
#1 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Mon 9 Jul 2012 at 08:43 AM
some of us find self-promotion rather unseemly ... in journalism it is beyond unseemly to vulgar ... good riddance Solomon
#2 Posted by radii, CJR on Mon 9 Jul 2012 at 02:00 PM
And in a strange turn of events, Solomon has been rehired back at the Times as a consultant.
#3 Posted by Richard McMullen, CJR on Mon 9 Jul 2012 at 03:47 PM
Solomon to world: Bwaaa hahahahaha!
#4 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Mon 9 Jul 2012 at 05:23 PM
Correction: The tuna series was not nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. It may have been an entrant. The Pulitzer juries choose the nominees.
#5 Posted by Bill Dedman, CJR on Mon 9 Jul 2012 at 06:09 PM
Contrary to Edward says above in his comment, this is not, I think a future-of-news story. It's a story about an ethically smarmy journalist and abysmally poor (delusional?) leader, and what I find perhaps most appalling is that despite all these many missteps, including some during his reporting days that my students can't get away with in class, he still seems to somehow still get hired, promoted and respected by the journalism elites, including big foundations. Yes, FON's, of which I'm one, are pro-entrepreneurship, experimenting with multiple revenue streams, and becoming digital-first. However, these initiatives as described here seem incredibly poorly conceived, with little understanding of how to build a sound digital strategy and not at all in concert with the unique value proposition of an investigative reporting unit.
#6 Posted by Carrie Brown, CJR on Mon 9 Jul 2012 at 11:31 PM
Well he is still rocking the blackberry in 2012 with RIM going bankrupt. So, I think he is obviously right on the bleeding edge of technology.
Frankly, I would never trust anyone who was willing to work for the Moonies, that shows a real lack of intelligence and ethics.
#7 Posted by RhZ, CJR on Tue 10 Jul 2012 at 08:54 AM
Solomon's days as a reporter for the Post are reminiscent of Scott Templton, the reporter from show The Wire, who also "was notorious for massaging facts to conjure phantom scandals". Expect more of the same in Solomon's future endeavors.
#8 Posted by Mark, CJR on Tue 10 Jul 2012 at 11:58 AM
It's nice to see some acknowledgement that the Center for Public Integrity lacks it. Would have been also nice to note how much they have received from various lefty sources to fund their investigations, especially lefty funder George Soros.
#9 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 05:29 AM
Oooooo, Danny. Remember that adage about glass houses?
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 11:57 AM
Ahh Thimbles, you are predictable in your vague and slimey accusations. First off, I don't see you having the courage to even use a real name. Perhaps you can't spell it. Even if you can and are just hiding, it allows you to make all sorts of bogus claims and outlandish comments and still live in your basement.
Next, I work as a conservative media critic after a couple decades in media including newspapers, magazines and online media. You?
#11 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 02:08 PM
"First off, I don't see you having the courage to even use a real name. Perhaps you can't spell it. Even if you can and are just hiding, it allows you to make all sorts of bogus claims and outlandish comments and still live in your basement."
So times are pretty normal at the schoolyard for you, I see.
"Next, I work as a conservative media critic"
Is that what they're calling your gig of putting every bitch off the top of your head on the internet and pairing it with the name Soros? (more like sore-ass, amirite rightwingnuts?) Good to know that the wingnut welfare system is getting its conspiritorial-minded bang for its bucks.
Say hi to Bozwell for me next time you see that bearded lady. Ciao.
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 04:42 PM
By the by, we shouldn't let Solomon's business model leadership detract from the center's work which has been top notch on topics few others would touch.
For instance:
http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/07/08/9293/black-lung-surges-back-coal-country
"Donald Marcum knew he was at least a passive participant in something that was against the rules, maybe even criminal. Every couple of months, his bosses had to send MSHA five samples showing they were keeping dust levels under control. The man with the greatest potential exposure — often Donald because he was running a continuous mining machine, which chews through coal and rock and generates clouds of dust — was supposed to wear a pump to collect dust for eight hours.
That almost never happened. Most of the time, he said, the mine foreman or someone else would take the pump and hang it in the cleaner air near the mine’s entrance.
When MSHA inspectors showed up to take their own samples, it wasn’t so easy to cheat. Donald would actually wear the pump, but he and his co-workers would mine only about half as much coal as they normally did, generating far less dust.
“We just done what we was told because we needed to feed our families and really didn’t look at what it might be doing to our health,” he said...
It’s difficult to tell how widespread such practices are, but many former miners described some variation of cheating occurring regularly at almost every mine where they had worked — and a culture of fear fostered by the companies. “We always set and thought, you know, maybe if we didn’t do it this way, that they’d come in and shut the mines down. Then we'd be out of work,” said David Neil, a 52-year-old West Virginia miner with black lung who now drives a coal-hauling truck."
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 05:02 PM
I think it's hilarious that Thimbles posts here. Shows just how morally bankrupt he is by his hiding his identity.
As for Soros, he has given at least $550 million to lefty causes and another $400 million funding his own higher ed initiatives. That's pretty far reaching, not that major media outlets would ever tell you.
#14 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Thu 12 Jul 2012 at 12:35 PM
I think that a supposed conservative grousing obsessively about how a rich person spends their own wealth and exercises their own free speech, while being funded by other rich people spending their own wealth and exercising their free speech, might be a bit morally bankrupt. And considering the standards of the organization he trolls for, I'd be leery of throwing the "morally bankrupt" label around while gulping down all that Scaife money for lies.
I mean what's your rate, Danny? A penny per 'Soros'? You must have Koch level cash in your bank book by now. Speaking of which...
"As for Soros, he has given at least $550 million to lefty causes and another $400 million funding his own higher ed initiatives."
Yeah, we know what you're talking about when you make a claim like that.
"George Soros is a lizard-person who funded the space laser that caused 9-11. More from Dan Gainor in a moment."
What are you charging, Danny, and is it worth your pride?
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 12 Jul 2012 at 04:04 PM
For Wales, Dan? For Wales?
http://gloria.tv/?media=171456
#16 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 12 Jul 2012 at 04:08 PM
I was a senior editor at The Washington Times under Solomon and its just not true that web traffic plunged when he was there. When he arrived the site was a sleepy afterthought updated once daily at midnight. When he left it had a dedicated staff updating around the clock, reporters were writing breaking news for the site, and we were aggressively pushing links out to aggregators. We broke into the top 30 newspaper sites in the Nielsen ratings during that time. Traffic did plunge after the owners laid off two-thirds of the staff and slashed the funding at the end of 2009, but Solomon was gone by then.
#17 Posted by David Jones, CJR on Sun 15 Jul 2012 at 02:14 PM
This article appears motivated by professional jealousy and pettiness. The slant of this is in search of scandal where none exists. CJR should be ashamed to print such an article filled with bias and smears.
#18 Posted by Fisherman, CJR on Mon 16 Jul 2012 at 05:06 PM
David Jones is correct. Traffic did rise on the Washington Times website under Solomon due to the ambitious updating and promoting Jones describes. We have corrected the piece to say so, and will say so again in a response to a letter to the editor from the Times in our next (September/October 2012) issue.
#19 Posted by Mike Hoyt, CJR on Fri 24 Aug 2012 at 01:55 PM