Editor’s Note: In a recent two-part edition, The Audit roundly castigated the press for what we believe has been a dismal job covering the reconstruction of the World Trade Center. We took issue with repetitive and undeservedly positive profiles of the trade center’s leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, and said the Financial Times, Esquire and the New York Post in particular were played “like a circus organ” by Silverstein’s publicist Howard Rubenstein.
Scott Raab, author of a lengthy series on ground zero for Esquire, asked for some space to respond.
In the interest of improved ground zero coverage, and of providing a home for reasoned debate about business-press issues, we set up a debate between Raab and Elinore Longobardi, the author of The Audit pieces. The last word is Raab’s.
I‘ve worked since April 2005 on a series of stories for Esquire about
rebuilding the World Trade Center, so I’d like to challenge the
assertion that Howard Rubenstein has “played (me) like a circus organ.”
To repeat and emphasize one point, at no time have I or my editor
with Howard Rubenstein or anyone from his agency during the two and
half years we have been reporting about rebuilding the World Trade
Center. From the beginning, in April 2005, we have dealt directly
Larry Silverstein and Dara McQuillan at Silverstein Properties. No
else. And neither Silverstein nor McQuillan ever asked for or
any control whatsoever over the range of reporting or the work
Esquire set out to write about the more practical aspects of
superskyscraper, i.e., the Freedom Tower, on contested ground.
after we began, the Freedom Tower project was thrown into chaos for
several reasons both familiar already to anybody who cares and not
directly relevant to the point — which is that, in addition to
about the actual work of designing, engineering, and building the
building, we were also writing about politics, real estate, and
“Deeply misguided” as my reporting and conclusions may appear to Ms.
Longobardi, I’ll stand by it and them. Over the course of my
on this story, I’ve talked with folks, on or off the record, at
major public agency and private contractor involved in the
and many of the minor ones, and I’ve followed the relevant work of
colleagues at The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and elsewhere. It’s a
big story, and there’s plenty to get wrong and plenty to debate.
Still, for anyone to assert, after watching the events of the past
years unfold at ground zero, that the Port Authority and Silverstein
Properties were not involved in a long, vicious war; or that George
Pataki did not first search in vain for a way to strip Silverstein
his leasehold, and then seek to control almost every aspect of the
Freedom Tower project; or that Mike Bloomberg finally opened his
about ground zero in order to serve the best interests of New York
City—for anyone to assert any of those things, much less all of
— is laughably ignorant.
As for my supposed pro-Silverstein hysteria, there’s no point in
to explain the differences between magazine and newspaper journalism
someone who already should understand them, at least in theory. But
here’s a big one: Unlike a newspaper reporter, I don’t have to hide
behind various sources to mask my own earned authority, and I don’t
need to balance sock-puppets to maintain the illusion of
Elinore Longobardi replies:
The purpose of this call-and-response is not to score points, but to clarify issues and improve ground zero coverage going forward.
We are happy to concede that we erred in saying that Raab was played like a circus organ by Silverstein and his external PR consultant Rubenstein.
But this to us is a form of hair-splitting. The press has been played at ground zero, let’s put it that way.