Matier & Ross Take On the I-Team

This is interesting. We, along with countless other reporters, have been trying to get an interview with Ruby Tourk. She’s San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s former Appointments Secretary, with whom he admitted having an affair while she and her husband, Alex, worked for the mayor. Alex Tourk was Newsom’s Deputy Chief of Staff at the time of the affair and his re-election Campaign Manager when the scandal broke January 31st.

Jennifer Siebel

We’ve been talking to Ruby through intermediaries since then, and our conversations increased this week after Newsom’s girlfriend, actress Jennifer Siebel, called Ruby Tourk “the culprit” in Sunday’s edition of the Chronicle, and after she expanded her criticism on the political website SFist.com. As we reported, Siebel apologized to all parties involved.

Tim Gaskin

I traded e-mails and phone calls this week with Tim Gaskin, Founder of Benefit Magazine where Ruby Tourk now works. He assured me that Ruby was close to giving her first interview and that she was considering speaking with us.

Andy Ross, KGO Radio's Ronn Owens, Phil Matier

Today, I got a call from the Chronicle’s Andy Ross, saying he had copies of e-mails I sent trying to get an interview with Ruby Tourk, and he wanted a comment from me. I didn’t quite understand -- comment on e-mails I sent? So, I asked him to send me the e-mails to see what he was talking about and verify their authenticity. After some reluctance about “giving up sources”, he sent part of the e-mail exchange I’ve had with Tim Gaskin this week. I e-mailed Ross back asking what questions he had. He only wanted to verify I sent them; he didn’t say what issues they raised, in his mind. You can see our entire e-mail exchange below.

We at ABC 7 have a history of being as transparent as possible with you in our newsgathering process; we feel it’s important. Because this is somehow becoming an issue -- Ross says it may run in this Sunday’s paper -- I want to show you all the e-mails I have that relate to this. I normally don’t post e-mails on my blog, but it’s clear that Tim Gaskin passed them on to someone who gave them to the Chronicle.

It starts Friday, March 2nd when Tim Gaskin is pitching a story. He wants me to do a feature on Benefit Magazine’s March layout on the 12-step recovery program. In this e-mail, he sends the photo spread:

To: Noyes, Dan Sent: Mar 2, 2007 9:09 AM From: tim@benefitmagazinesf.com Subject: Have a look at these and call me when you are free. 415-433-2xxx [2 Attachments]

I then have a phone conversation with Gaskin in which I tell him, I’m reluctant to do the story because it’s already aired on a competing station. I go on to explain that I would consider it, if Ruby Tourk would give us a comment for the report. Gaskin offered that Ruby was doing well with her recovery, and that she would have “a big announcement” soon. He told me her weekend radio show is going five days a week. He asks me to send an e-mail which he’ll forward to Ruby. I send this:

From: Noyes, Dan To: tim@benefitmagazinesf.com Sent: Fri Mar 02 16:21:45 2007 Subject: Re: Have a look at these and call me when you are free. 415-433-2xxx

Hi Tim,

Thanks for the conversation a few minutes ago. As we discussed, we need a way to advance your story on the 12-step program coming out in a week.

Clearly, having a talk with Ruby would make some news, in combination with your article. Gavin has had the chance to tell his side of the story; I thought at some point Ruby would.

I think it’s important for people to hear what you said, that she’s done nothing wrong, that she’s been sober for many months and is moving forward with her life in a positive way. That’s also interesting news about a possible 5-day a week show on the Quake.

I want Ruby to know that she can talk about whatever she wants: her career, her child, her ten months sober – that would obviously fit well with your upcoming issue. I also want her to know that I don’t see this as a confrontational interview like I sometimes do with “the bad guys”, such as con men or uncooperative politicians. I really see her as a sympathetic character.

I look forward to hearing from you, Tim. I get e-mails 24/7 on my blackberry and please call my cell any time – 672-9xxx. I’d be happy to do the shoot at Benefit any time, even over this weekend.

Best,
Dan

Then, on Sunday, March 4th, I send:

From: Noyes, Dan To: tim@benefitmagazinesf.com Sent: Mar 4, 2007 8:00 PM Subject: Re: Have a look at these and call me when you are free. 415-433-2xxx

Any thoughts, Tim? I’m planning my week.

He answers on Monday:

To: Dan Noyes Sent: Mar 5, 2007 8:00 AM From: Tim Gaskin Subject: Re: Have a look at these and call me when you are free. 415-433-2xxx

Ruby still thinks the time to speak out isn’t just now. Alex just announced what he is doing next and there is some good news from Ruby that we have not finalized.

I understand if you do not want to do the 12-step story without Ruby’s involvement.

Still, and completely separately, the fact that you do nonprofit volunteer hosting really elevates you in my mind. I look forward to turning the tables on you for our fourteen page on SF reporters who host nonprofit events. I’ve already covered Kate Kelly, Jan Wahl, Leslie Nagy and Wendy Tokuda.

Tim

That same day, I’m preparing another follow-up on the Ruby Tourk time sheet issue and send this e-mail:

From: Noyes, Dan To: Tim Gaskin Sent: Mar 5, 2007 8:11 AM Subject: Re: Have a look at these and call me when you are free. 415-433-2xxx

Thanks for the message, Tim. As an investigative type, I can’t really do the 12-step story because it’s already aired elsewhere.

I appreciate you taking my note to Ruby. I had hoped to do the story that you and I discussed, but now I’m left with something we started working on before – a closer look at Ruby’s time sheets. I’d rather not focus on that, and the story you and I discussed surely would have eclipsed the time sheets story.

That said, please pass on to Ruby that we’re doing the time sheets story today and would like a comment from her. As part of the same story, we’re talking to others who’ve had family members in the CIP who are upset she used the program.

Thanks again for your time, Tim.

Best,
Dan

The story airs. Tim and I have no contact until this past Sunday, when the Chronicle runs a profile of actress Jennifer Siebel, in which she criticizes Ruby Tourk, calling her “the culprit”. I send this e-mail to Gaskin on Sunday (For your reference, Sam Singer is a public relations expert who says he’s volunteering his time to Gaskin and the Tourks. Singer and the I-Team have had run-ins during past investigations; he represented the foie gras farmers during our series of reports on force-feeding ducks that lead to a state law against the practice. He has been critical of our coverage on the City Hall sex scandal, as well):

From: Noyes, Dan To: tim@benefitmagazinesf.com Sent: Mar 11, 2007 9:59 AM Subject: Ruby

Hi Tim,

How many more hits is Ruby going to take before she tells her side? Huge story in the Chron -- Jennifer Seibel says Ruby "is the culprit. Alex Tourk is a nice man and it saddens me that his wife did that to him." Man!

Sam Singer is not my biggest fan obviously, but an interview with me will have much more impact. When people want to get their side out, they go to the toughest, most well-known journalists. Bill and Hillary Clinton go to 60 Minutes, others go to 20/20. Locally, it's me and we would give this a professional, high-impact treatment.

It's time.

Thanks for listening,
Dan

Then, Monday afternoon, Jennifer Siebel expands on her comments to the Chronicle in SFist, posting a rambling comment that reads in part, “It was a few nothing incidents when she showed up passed out outside of his door. Come on guys, have a heart. I have tried to see Ruby's side of the story, but unfortunately everyone near to her has stories and says she is bad news."

I see Siebel’s posting Monday night and call Gaskin about it. He expresses shock and asks me to send him and Ruby an e-mail:

From: Noyes, Dan Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:44 PM To: tim@benefitmagazinesf.com Subject: Jennifer on Ruby

Hi Tim and Ruby,

As I wrote in my earlier e-mail, Jennifer continues to take shots. This is her posting today from SFist.com, trying to "explain" her comments in the Chronicle: "he's been so hurt by this all -- personally and professionally- and it was a few nothing incidents when she showed up passed out outside of his door. come on guys, have a heart. I have tried to see Ruby's side of the story but unfortunately everyone near to her has stories and says she is bad news."

When will Ruby stand up and give her side? This is so unfair, and that's all I've tried to do all along is tell both sides of the story. I can arrange a two-camera shoot for the morning -- one on Ruby and one on me -- and if it's a big concern, we can agree not to edit any of the interview. What she says will go on the air. Please get back to me as soon as possible.

The Chronicle is saying Ruby is very close to talking to them. Do you really want to use the newspaper that has done so many favorable articles on Gavin and has ignored critical stories?

You can reach me any time on this blackberry e-mail address or my cell at 672-9xxx.

Dan Noyes, ABC 7 News

Then, I post a blog on the Siebel story with her apology, and forward it to Gaskin just before it airs on ABC 7 News at 11pm:

From: Noyes, Dan Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 11:00 PM To: tim@benefitmagazinesf.com Subject: Here's what we're putting on the air in a few minutes -- it's also on my blog.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's girlfriend has issued an apology via the ABC 7 I-Team tonight, for comments she made on a local political website. Actress Jennifer Siebel posted a comment this afternoon on SF-ist, blasting Ruby Tourk -- Newsom's former appointments secretary with whom he admitted having an affair.

Jennifer Siebel wrote about Newsom and Tourk on the blog, "It was a few nothing incidents when she showed up passed out outside of his door. Come on guys, have a heart. I have tried to see Ruby's side of the story, but unfortunately everyone near to her has stories and says she is bad news."

The I-Team reached Siebel at her Beverly Hills home tonight, and among her comments, she said, "I've never blogged before. It's been totally blown out of proportion. I'm a nice girl and don't deserve this. I apologize to all parties involved."

Then, Tuesday morning, I had a brief conversation with Gaskin – he asks me to send another e-mail:

-----Original Message----- From: Noyes, Dan Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 8:16 AM To: 'tim@benefitmagazinesf.com' Subject: Ruby

Morning Tim,

What's Ruby thinking, in light of Jennifer's new info about her and Gavin?

If you wanted to go today, you can get double coverage when you have your announcement next week.

Thanks,
Dan

Gaskin replies:

From: Tim Gaskin [mailto:tim@benefitmagazinesf.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:58 AM To: Noyes, Dan Subject: Re: Ruby

Dan: thanks. One more thing: perhaps I didn't ask the question properly...you hit upon it earlier: what is your perception of the Mayor in this story and what is your perception of Ruby? Thanks for getting back to me. Tim

I answer:

From: Noyes, Dan Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 11:03 AM To: 'Tim Gaskin' Subject: RE: Ruby

Being frank, Tim, I don’t take sides in stories. But, I’ve been at this so long that I just know when the coverage has been unfair or inaccurate. I often focus on that kind of stories, and try to right the wrong. There’s no question that Ruby has been treated unfairly. She’s been made out to be the culprit from the start: by Gavin, by Phil Ginsberg (timesheets), and now Jennifer. Gavin has skated by on this, and the “other side” has been vastly ignored. We have to fix that. It must be incredibly difficult for Ruby to hear all this, without her side getting out. That’s what I want.

From: Noyes, Dan Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:23 AM To: 'tim@benefitmagazinesf.com' Subject: Ruby

Hi Tim,

I had another thought about today. Would Ruby give me just a single comment reacting to the negative things Jennifer said? Otherwise, they're just hanging out there. We could limit the taping just to that -- I would agree to no follow up questions. Maybe we could do a full interview at a later date.

Knowing how public perception works, I just think it's important to counter some of this crap now before it sinks in.

Thanks,
Dan
672-9xxx

Gaskin also asks:

-----Original Message----- From: Tim Gaskin To: Noyes, Dan Sent: Tue Mar 13 10:36:01 2007 Subject: Re: Ruby

In telling both sides of the story, we are curious how you'd tell the mayors side?

I answer:

-----Original Message----- From: Noyes, Dan Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:37 AM To: 'tim@benefitmagazinesf.com' Subject: Re: Ruby

The mayor's side has been out there -- he's had enough say, as has Jennifer. It's now Ruby's turn. This would be just her.

I add:

From: Noyes, Dan Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 11:34 AM To: 'Tim Gaskin' Subject: RE: Ruby

I should add one more thing, Tim. This will be a sympathetic interview – there’s no need to put Ruby on the spot. I just want to hear what she has to say, which I’m sure is heartfelt.

Gaskin answers:

-----Original Message----- From: Tim Gaskin [mailto:tim@benefitmagazinesf.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 11:40 AM To: Noyes, Dan Subject: Re: Ruby

I forwarded your comments onto ruby and thanks.

Later that day:

From: Noyes, Dan Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:21 PM To: 'tim@benefitmagazinesf.com' Cc: 'timgaskin@gmail.com' Subject: RUBY

Hi Tim,

Would it help for Ruby and I to meet? People often get more comfortable, knowing me in person. I would agree to do this totally off the record and with no camera. Just me, talking to you guys about talking in the future.

Just an idea. We could meet after the 6pm show tonight.

Thanks,
Dan

I sent one other e-mail Wednesday, after a Matier & Ross article on “Newsom’s Damage Control”:

-----Original Message----- From: Noyes, Dan Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:44 AM To: 'tim@benefitmagazinesf.com' Subject: Ruby

Hi Tim,

Just checking in. How much longer will Ruby let Gavin's friends (Kay, Singer and others) keep her quiet? It seems like the only one being served here is Gavin.

My offer of an off-the-record, no camera meeting stands, so we can talk about talking.

Thanks,
Dan

I had one other e-mail from Tim Gaskin today. After the call from Andy Ross, I called Gaskin to ask what’s going on and how our e-mails wound up at the Chronicle. He said, “Can I call you right back?” I answered, “Sure.” A few minutes later, this came:

-----Original Message----- From: Tim Gaskin [mailto:tim@benefitmagazinesf.com] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:28 PM To: Noyes, Dan; Sam Singer Subject: Re: Ruby

Contact Sam Singer, I can't be of any more help at this point in regards to ruby. Sam Singer sam@singersf.com

Now, to Andy Ross’ e-mails. For someone working on a story, he’s asked very few questions:

From: Ross, Andy [mailto:ARoss@sfchronicle.com] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 11:17 AM To: Noyes, Dan Subject: Your e-mails - CHRONICLE REQUEST

DAN, I'VE SENT YOU COPIES OF YOUR E-MAILS, AS YOU REQUESTED. JUST WANT TO SEE IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT?
Best,
Andy Ross

From: Noyes, Dan [mailto:Dan.Noyes@abc.com] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:13 PM To: Ross, Andy Subject: RE: Your e-mails - CHRONICLE REQUEST

I see them, Andy. What questions do you have?

From: Ross, Andy [mailto:ARoss@sfchronicle.com]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 3:24 PM
To: Noyes, Dan
Subject: RE: Your e-mails - CHRONICLE REQUEST

Dan, simple, I just wanted to confirm that you wrote them. And if you have anything you want to say about them, please let me know?? Best, Andy

From: Noyes, Dan
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 3:30 PM
To: 'Ross, Andy'
Subject: RE: Your e-mails - CHRONICLE REQUEST

Sure, Andy.

Yes, they’re part of a long exchange I’ve had with Tim Gaskin that included phone calls, as well. I’m sorry -- I still don’t quite understand what you mean when you ask if I have anything to say about them. If you ask a direct question about an issue, I’m happy to answer.

Are you running something Sunday?

Best,
Dan

From: Ross, Andy [mailto:ARoss@sfchronicle.com]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 4:31 PM
To: Noyes, Dan
Subject: RE: Your e-mails - CHRONICLE REQUEST

Dan, thanks -- just wanted to confirm that you wrote these messages. No specific questions -- I think they pretty much speak for themselves. But yes, we will probably run them this weekend, though we are still tinkering with our column lineup. Again, thanks for getting back to me.

Best, Andy

From: Noyes, Dan
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 4:36 PM
To: 'Ross, Andy'
Subject: RE: Your e-mails - CHRONICLE REQUEST

Thanks, Andy. Hopefully, you’ll return the favor.

Please explain what news value you saw in this e-mail exchange and what issues it raises. I’m preparing a story for ABC 7 on this now.

Best,
Dan

I received no response from Ross, so I followed up:

From: Noyes, Dan Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 5:06 PM To: 'Ross, Andy' Subject: RE: Your e-mails - CHRONICLE REQUEST

Andy,

It seems you’re being cryptic about the item you’re writing. You asked me to comment on my own e-mails. Huh? I hope you’ll let me address whatever criticism there may be.

Also, there are many other e-mails on the issue; we try to be as transparent as possible in our newsgathering process. Because it seems to be an issue with you, I’ll be posting everything I have with some additional context on my blog in a few minutes.

Best,
Dan

I’ll let you know if he answers.

UPDATE: Monday, March 19th, 10:45 am

Just received an e-mail from Andy Ross, complaining that I did not post his response to my last e-mail. Funny, but I never received it, and I've thoroughly checked my account. Here's our exchange this morning:

From: Ross, Andy [mailto:ARoss@sfchronicle.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:26 AM To: Noyes, Dan Subject: FW: Your e-mails - CHRONICLE REQUEST

Dan, for some reason you didn't post my reply to your question that I sent you Friday. Here it is again -- maybe this time, as promised on your blog, you will print it. Best, Andy Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: Ross, Andy
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 6:18 PM
To: 'Noyes, Dan '
Subject: RE: Your e-mails - CHRONICLE REQUEST

Dan, the answer is simple: We write about high-profile personalities in our column -- and as you indicated in your own e-mails, you are certainly are one of them. In the context of our column, I think the public is interested in your views of Newsom, the Chronicle and, for that matter, yourself. Best, Andy

From: Noyes, Dan
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:40 AM
To: 'Ross, Andy'
Subject: RE: Your e-mails - CHRONICLE REQUEST

Never received it, Andy. I went back and checked. Are you sure you pushed “send”? Am happy to post it now.

Really curious why the source of the e-mails was not explored in your column – wasn’t it newsworthy to whom I was writing? Didn’t you see anything in my blog that would have added context to your column?

That said, I am thankful for the mention. Any time I can answer your questions, please call.

Dan

Ross responded this afternoon, but didn't answer any of the questions above:

From: Ross, Andy [mailto:ARoss@sfchronicle.com]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:14 PM
To: Noyes, Dan
Subject: RE: Your e-mails - CHRONICLE REQUEST

Well do. Thanks, Andy

Comments

[dan]

And I'll be seeing YOU at the Peabody Awards ha ha ha!

Or Not.

[Ruby]

Instead of the I-Team you should be called the 'Foxy-Team' heh heh....

[sfmike]

Dear Dan: You're my hero. That was one of the best uses of the internet I've seen in ages. "You want to take emails out of context and make a few inappropriate inferences? Well, here's every frigging email IN CONTEXT." Well done.

And the "Ross Report" on the SFGate blog is one of the most putrid things on that site. May it wither away soon.

[dan]

Oh god, Dan, why don't you just use postcards?

[sfwillie]

I think M&R were going to say that you "threatened" Ruby with a timesheet investigation in order to get her to consent to an interview.

Apparantly Ruby's timesheet defense needs some shoring up.

M&R's actual story this morning is pathetic, no news except that DN is a persistent reporter (which is a good thing).

By running your preemptive post not only did you refute their original intent, you forced them to run "something."

Way to go!

[New KGO I-team watcher]

The messages sent by that guy Ross are passive-aggressive, and weird. And why would Tim Gaskin forward your private emails to someone else, without your knowledge or permission? That's unethical at best, illegal at worst. If he had some issue with the emails, why didn't Gaskin just contact you? The whole thing stinks.

[dan]

Where are your emails to the Aicardis?

I could paraphrase...."You have not gotten your side out and we could schedule an interview with no follow ups, or we could just talk about having an interview, and i would agree to hand over editorial control to you, but you have to let me know by the end of the day because I'm working on a hit piece against you now accusing you of criminal assault so let me know about that interview right away. After all you are a sympathetic figure, and you dont wnat that media speculation about criminal behavior involving your son, right? Of course not...."

[dan]

And you mention tough national reporters, like 60 Minutes.

Is it really true that 60 Minutes has a policy going back thirty five years that they do not negotiate conditions for an interview?

(It certainly seems that lately they have changed that policy, when you see Leslie Stahl do fluff human interest stories abaout billionaires like her Bioval lawsuit PR).

So when you say tough do you mean tough in the sense that you are a tough journalist or do you mean tough in the sense that you are a tough media blackmailer?

PS. I know you didnt invent the system you just survive in it.

This is in a sense just another pro Newsom hit piece from the Chronicle in the sense that they imply you are the only one out there negotiating for interviews when actually it is
standard procedure and is indicative of either a decline in journalistic standards, or a tribute to the power of the internet to reveal that in reality those standards never existed to begin with.

The proper way to fight this obviously would be to obtain some Chronicle emails and publish them in return.

This means WAR!!!!!!!

Yeah. DOUBLE PEABODY!

Team Foxy!!!

[jonesy]

Another great job, Dan Noyes is the only journalist looking for the "transparency" in this administration where sadly it is incredibly dark. Phil Ginsberg needs to be held accountable for this issue on the timecards, what happened was wrong, probably illegal, and Phil clearly knows it being both a lawyer and former director of the Department of Human Resources, he is the city expert. Phil needs to take responsibility and actually do the job he is paid to do by the people of San Francisco. The poor people who pay his inflated salary probably make about one third of what he's pulling down and when they go to work they don't have the luxury of picking and choosing what part of their jobs they want to do, they have to take the good with the bad. But that's the problem with the city, there are hundreds of employees who think they are getting paid to promote their political futures and ignore their real jobs. Just look at the vice president of the building commission, Frank Lee. Frank is an architect who occupies the "architectual" chair on the commission but he is actually a full time city employee from the Bureau of Architecture who works as a "spokesperson". So while Frank is being paid a huge salary for his 9-5 city job Gavin appointed him to the commission to carry his water and be his whipping boy on issues. Great for Frank, like Phil he can have all the stability and benefits of a city job and at the same time plot and work on his political career, what a disgrace and in particular a disgrace to all the honorable city employees who actually show up for work each day and take care of business for much less money and prestige.

[jonesy]

I left out my main gripe above with Frank Lee and his appointment to the "architectural" seat on the building commission by Gavin. That seat was created for a practicing architect, in private industry, dealing with the bureaucracy, so that as a public professional member changes could be brought to better deliver services. Frank as stated above is a full time city employee who is free to leave his paid duties at any time and work on building commission business, where's the sense in that? Frank is supposed to file reports that detail his time away from his paid job (as a condition of being a full time civil servant but getting paid instead to play politician and look for his next big career move) but he has failed to do the proper paperwork on many, many occassions. You mean with all the professional, practicing, residing in San Francisco, architects on the AIA rooster Gavin couldn't find anyone to appoint but a city employee who didn't even practice architecture? Where's the "best and the brightest" theory here. No, Frank Lees real purpose was for Gavin to appoint someone to the seat that he could control, what better control then having this city employees job on the line every time he needs to vote. Pretty foolproof for the mayor. Frank Lee needed to be appointed to allow Gavin to appoint another attorney to a post she wasn't qualified to fill(ala Anne Marie Conroy) that being Amy Lee who with Frank Lees help went on to become the Director of the building department while a protracted search was made for a new director (two years!) and Frank voted to bail out another mayor puppet for a high paying job as "communications director" for the building department since Gavin couldn't chance having his appointee, Ms Lee, face any interviews or cameras due to her acute lack of technical knowledge relative to construction issues. Just another day in the Newsom administration, remember he told us he wasn't going to act like Willie. Willie Brown had more integrity in his fedora than Gavin will ever hope to accumulate in ten lifetimes. Next time let's talk about Stuart Sunshine, now there's the second coming of Christ! I've never seen anyone make a career out of changing jobs and knowing nothing about any one of them more then Stuart.

[itried]

you know you sypathize with ruby for not hearing her side of the story....but in the yale incident you've only heard the yalies side of the story and you still attack the potential suspects. grant it you said to tried to reach the others to get their side of the story but instead of sypathizing with them like you did with ruby you continue to tell the story like you have all the facts...dan your a schmuck and stop trying to look like the people's reporter. you only do the stories that make you look better and further that title.

[Dommonie Autry]

Dan what can I say. Here we go again you do not give a damn about Ruby Tourk she is just a pawn that you want to use to get to Gavin. Ruby would be a damn fool to interview with you. You didn't seem to have a problem dogging her when it came to the money she got for pay leave. You are scum Dan. I have never in my life seen one journalist so obess with one man. Dan are you in love with Gavin? Do you wish you were Gavin? I've said it before and I will said again you are so patheric.

[kellog64]

What a laugh-riot to read the shrill comments of the the Gavinablers. Clearly the I-Team must tread carefully here to avoid dogging the Tourksbut at minimum you should reveal the Benefit Magazine to be the Newsom house organ that it is. Now then, what do Delancey Street and Benefit have in common??

[Ez-M]

Dan, your latest blog is nothing more than damage control!
Just admit it; I've used this on occasion myself. It works like this: Whenever I get myself in hot water with a customer and I feel that it's going get back to my managers (I'd call them superiors, but most of the time they aren’t!). I would call or email them and give them my side or (angle) of the story first. This way it clouds the issue by making me look like I have nothing to hide! The difference between you and I are perhaps many, but one thing I see we have in common; we know how to roll with the punches! I'm impressed, although I have to ask myself this question. Where is the story here? I sincerely don’t care about Ruby’s side of things; for that matter I don't care about Gavin’s side either!

Now, I would care if you had something really illegal on the one or both of them; then you would be doing the public a service by exposing them.
Dan I actually think you’re an extremely good reporter but don’t you think you’ve beaten the hell out of this story? On the other hand, if you think that by some remote chance that Gavin forced Ruby to have an affair with him; by all means continue the course! Go back to the Mayors press security, that’s a shifty guy! Is he still working for the Mayors office?

[Ez-M]

Dan,
I gave you a bad email address, I corrected it!

[h. brown]

Dan,

What did Bruce Willis say in 'Die Hard'? Yeah: "Well, welcome to the party pal!".

Try and talk to Ruby and you run afoul of all of the interests who want to keep Gavin in power.

Keep in mind that not only is the City budget around 6 billion, but that there are various bonded projects out there that push the cash in play through City contracts to closer to 15 billion.

Newsom's handlers seem to know that Ruby can bring all of this down. They make vicious attacks upon anyone who tries to talk to Ruby.

Luke Thomas was first. He ended up on a jet headed for Morocco a couple of months ago and was the first reporter in town to ask her about the rumors of sex and an abortion.

Organizer of the tour (Gus Murad, a Newsom appointee to the Small Business Commission) pulled his advertising from Thomas' Fog City Journal, bought a full page spread in Gaskin's Benefit magazine and was insulting and threatening to Luke.

Murad's stakes? He owns most of a block in the Mission which he hopes to gentrify as quickly as possible with market rate housing.

Thomas was right about this story from the start. It could bring down the Newsom administration. I'd expect to see more visits from Eric Jaye to your bosses. Hell, they might even run Bill Clinton by to recommend you get fired.

h.

[Greg]

Like everything else surrounding the events of the past few months, this is just weird. Why would a newspaper write a story saying "Gawrsh, some reporter's trying to interview someone whose been in the news lately?" It's just plain goofy.

Dan, maybe you should buy one of our "Team Newsom" shirts - then that way maybe they won't be so upset all the time at City Hall.

gregdewar.com

[Amos Magothy]

The sole generating force behind Ruby Tourk’s crisis is Gavin Newsom.
As the mayor of San Francisco, he has an absolute responsibility to protect every single employee of the City and County of San Francisco. His relationship is like a physician to his or her patients: first, do no harm.
Newsom failed miserably to meet his responsibility. In fact, his failure is the direct cause of Ruby’s crisis and the ensuing questionable disbursement of money to her for excess sick leave. If he hadn’t participated in the affair, there would have been no sick leave and thus no disbursement. This whole matter ought to be called “The Newsom Scandal” instead of the deceptive “Newsom-Tourk Affair.”
Many have argued that Ruby Tourk is responsible for the matter. As the old saying goes, it takes two to tango. Even if (and I doubt it) Ruby Tourk were a consenting participant (can an inebriated woman consent to anything? Another matter for discussion), Newsom had an absolute responsibility to avoid the affair.
Even if Ruby Tourk barged into his office and demanded that they start an affair right then and there, he did not have to engage her. The realities of sex require a certain part of the male anatomy to be prepared. I have personally never heard of a non-consenting erection, unless an addict were recovering from an overdose of Cialis..
Now Newsom supporters are engaging in the systematic destruction of Ruby’s reputation. And more insidiously, they’ve managed to convince her to remain silent and worse remain in the very environment and surrounded by the very people who enabled her alcoholism in the first place. This is fraught with danger for her. She is encircled by relapse triggers.
Any decent and qualified counselor (I am not a counselor, decent or otherwise) would advise her to completely sever contact with all of the people and involvement in every single situation that triggers relapse temptations. If the “good news” she is expected to announce includes a continuation of contact with those people and situations, she will not be free of the most dangerous enticements. That she has continued her old relationships tells me she is still very fragile, extremely hesitant to give up the old ways that felt comfortable to her. Real change requires great courage.
One thing continued to puzzles me. I can’t understand how a girl from a solid middle-class background managed to descend into one of the slimiest arenas one can imagine: politics.

[Moss]

Dan,

Keep up the good fight.

March on me amigo.

MOSS

[Mark Eichman]

Dan,

So much for professional courtesy. Generally, I like M&R's reporting, but I'm surprised that Andy Ross would so easily let himself be used as a political tool.

I agree with the earlier writer that pre-emptively posting the entire exchange was a brilliant strategic move. Given that you did this, why would M&R be so absurd as to forge ahead with this negative spin tactic using out of context emails, and mischaracterizing the exchange as "shooting [shot] off a string of emails...."? The next thing you know, you'll do an interview with an evasive Newsom, and M&R will accuse you of spewing out a volley of questions.

The reaction given by some of your detractors here clearly shows much of the public is unable to distinguish fact from opinion and journalism from op-ed.

I'm sorry that Andy Ross had to end up looking like such an ass here, but I've always liked grouchy Phil Matier more anyway.

Keep it up.

-Mark

[js]

mark, stop it alright. maybe these people reactions are opinionated and not based on facts...alright well if its on a story coming from dan noyes then its already well opionated to what he likes....tust me on this

[Ken Wendall]

videotape doesn't lie. ... i enjoyed the blogs comparing the battling i-teams (sfist and the press club ) -- ken w.

[Mark Eichman]

JS,

There's nothing wrong with opinion. Everyone's got one... but that's a cliché for a different discussion. No, at issue is the basis of those opinions.

Andy Ross's is skewed enough, presenting only selected excerpts from the Noyes/Gaskin exchange. Subsequent opinion using the M&R story as its foundation is on even shakier ground. But I want to thank you for helping me illustrate my point, that a good portion of the public has difficulty distinguishing (or simply chooses not to distinguish as suits their needs) between fact and opinion.

If you want to slam Noyes for being slanted, then you ought to be far more critical of Ross. But instead, you choose to tell me to stop it and to "t[r]ust" your opinion. Can you get any nuttier?

[Dave Schmave]

Dave,

You've been mooching around the blogs and whining about this for months now. Why don't you go out and actually do something about it instead. God, you make ME want to jump just to halt your endless blabber.

[Amos Magothy]

Did my eyes deceive me today when I read a report in SFGate and a similar one on SFist in which Ruby Tourk was quoted as saying "I'm Ruby, of the sex scandal Ruby."?
If the report is correct, she is about as bubble-head as Jennifer Siebel. My first reaction was, "Say it ain't so, Joe."
I wonder if her husband was with her or any of her "advisors." I can't imagine anyone advising her to make a comment like this, even in jest. In one fell swoop, she has pretty well verified what a lot of bloggers have maintained from the beginning, that she is a loose canon. Not only has she trivialized the whole matter but she has also cast herself as rather proud of the publicity. Contriteness and good taste seem to have disappeared from her vocabulary. She ought to get on the horn and eiher deny the report or "explain" it. If she let's it stand, it will be an insult to her husband, their child, and the families of both Ruby and Alex. For the sake of those who have supported you, "Say it ain't so, Ruby."