Investigative author Caitlin Rother amplifies her remarks on DeMaio

Once upon a time there was a wonderful forest in a magical land called Dona Egis. The weather was balmy, the crops hale, and noisome dragons lived far away in the fetid, troll-infested swamp of Nos Alleges. Until one day, when the town crier spread word that the forest was afflicted by a mysterious blight. Immediately, the magicians, apothecaries, soothsayers, thaumaturgists and hierophants went to work discerning which trees were blighted. "These trees!" said the magicians, consulting their magical tomes. "No, those trees!" said the soothsayers, reading the entrails of goats. "What blight?" said a few. And so on. At last, a venerable but hale woodcutter/scribe raised his voice. "While there is indeed a blight in the forest, I am absolutely certain that one tree is free of this dreadful scourge," said the woodcutter/scribe, named Daubed Nor. He gestured to a willow tree by a creek, called by the locals the Rives Organdie. "Now go investigate these other trees," he said, reading from a list. The locals pondered this news while sipping their mead, a tasty Robing Newest. They respected the woodcutter/scribe not only for his forestry skills, but also for his work at Rhea Detre, a venerated scribe guild. "But look at the cankers on the trunk!" cried a humble scribe apprentice named Dryad Atoning. "Shouldn't you examine this willow tree more carefully?" The wise old Daubed Nor shook his head knowingly at the credulous whippersnapper. "Nay, you have been bewitched by my trickster rival, Ancestral Gumshoed!" Nor cried. "Go investigate the other trees! Why would you want to examine this fine poplar when I've declared it blight-free?"
— March 31, 2013 10:48 a.m.

Investigative author Caitlin Rother amplifies her remarks on DeMaio

Hi Don, You wrote: "Unfortunately, she cannot defend herself because she is not saying anything." If Rother is not saying anything, then some imposter has [issued a statement][1] in her name. ;-) [1]: Your questions about the U-T are noted, but they do not bear on the veracity of Rother's story. Her account simply does not square with the facts as laid out in the emails and the scope of work that delineated her assignment. Indeed, it raises more questions: -- What kind of "legitimate balanced journalism" would concentrate on the "negative information" and rely on other reporters to find positive information, as Rother claimed was her intent? -- Why would legitimate journalism require contracting through a campaign committee? -- What is the text of the updated scope of work Rother refers to in her statement? -- When was this updated scope of work adopted? -- If such an updated scope of work actually exists, why wasn't it in the documents released by the FPPC? I believe Rother's assertion that she didn't want to be associated with anything but a pure information-gathering project. "Associated" is the key word -- such statements require careful parsing. Far from being a reluctant opp researcher, Rother even implied in an email that she would like more such assignments. She just wanted her name kept out of it. As Gayle said earlier, "transparency is everything", but Rother wanted opacity. Given such huge holes in Rother's story, I think you've needlessly committed yourself to defending her veracity. Regardless of what you were told off-the-record, you would be entirely within journalistic ethics to maintain a discreet silence.
— March 29, 2013 10:57 p.m.

Let’s Be Friends

Subscribe for local event alerts, concerts tickets, promotions and more from the San Diego Reader