Oh, that silly goose Steve Friess. Tabloid Baby's 2009 Journalist of The Year is having a hissy fit and throwing around words like "slander" once again because we reported on his very controversial Las Vegas Weekly cover story, A Snitch in the Family, in which he explains why he crossed journalistic and familial lines to help US Marshals snare his uncle, who'd fled from a plea bargain and sentencing on Internet kiddie porn charges.
In response, Steve Friess, stringer reporter for The New York Times and other national periodicals (as well as Las Vegas blogger, Gay Vegas author, concert promoter and comp queen), calls us:
"Pro-child porn"... "Sad"... "Treacherous"... "Sick"... and "Desperate for attention"... while even more disturbingly, refers to himself as "The Friesster."
As we reported earlier this afternoon, this arrest escapade was only Friess's latest ethical quandary of the past year, and only the latest that he made public by using the Las Vegas Weekly to explain himself. We did not pass judgment on Steve's pickle. In fact, we posted a link to the story and suggested to our readers: "You be the judge."
Within minutes, however, the hysterical "Friesster" posted an anonymous comment on our site, in which he congratulated himself for his action.
Then he wrote a second comment, which he deleted.
And then he sent an email to our office:
"So you're pro-child porn now! How thrilling for you!
"Also, I own the copyright on the image you've used. Please remove immediately. Then you can lie about being threatened to be shut down again when, of course, I'm simply suggesting that you not steal. If anything you said was of consequence, I'd rebut your lies, but in a full year of attacks, not a single person in any serious manner has ever noticed or cared what you say. God, you're so sad.
"-sf
"P.S. Yes I deleted my own comment from your blog. I did it because I have had a long-standing policy of not reading or commenting on your treacherous site of slander. I just couldn't believe anyone would attack for something like this, so I had to click. Then I realized: I don't need to react to show how sick and desperate for attention this "person" is. Everyone already knows. Frown face!"
This is The Friesster's deleted comment (which he'd posted inadvertently under the name of his blog):
"So you're pro-child porn? Kinda undermines ur bitching at tmz but oh well! Bravo to the friesster! Cross what line? Journalists aren't above the law. Are you saying you would harbor a porn pusher?"
Frown face? Now really, was there anything we'd written that would warrant such an attack? Remember, this is a reporter for The New York Times, a man who's made himself a public figure by airing his laundry across the Internet while toeing the line that "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas."
Would a trusted, objective reporter suggest someone is "pro-child porn" for reporting a story that he himself promoted on his blog (in a post that begins with the line, "I lied to you people a couple of weeks ago...")? Oh, right. He called us much worse for daring to ask questions about the death of Danny Gans.
In response, Steve Friess, stringer reporter for The New York Times and other national periodicals (as well as Las Vegas blogger, Gay Vegas author, concert promoter and comp queen), calls us:
"Pro-child porn"... "Sad"... "Treacherous"... "Sick"... and "Desperate for attention"... while even more disturbingly, refers to himself as "The Friesster."
As we reported earlier this afternoon, this arrest escapade was only Friess's latest ethical quandary of the past year, and only the latest that he made public by using the Las Vegas Weekly to explain himself. We did not pass judgment on Steve's pickle. In fact, we posted a link to the story and suggested to our readers: "You be the judge."Within minutes, however, the hysterical "Friesster" posted an anonymous comment on our site, in which he congratulated himself for his action.
Then he wrote a second comment, which he deleted.
And then he sent an email to our office:
"So you're pro-child porn now! How thrilling for you!
"Also, I own the copyright on the image you've used. Please remove immediately. Then you can lie about being threatened to be shut down again when, of course, I'm simply suggesting that you not steal. If anything you said was of consequence, I'd rebut your lies, but in a full year of attacks, not a single person in any serious manner has ever noticed or cared what you say. God, you're so sad.
"-sf
"P.S. Yes I deleted my own comment from your blog. I did it because I have had a long-standing policy of not reading or commenting on your treacherous site of slander. I just couldn't believe anyone would attack for something like this, so I had to click. Then I realized: I don't need to react to show how sick and desperate for attention this "person" is. Everyone already knows. Frown face!"
This is The Friesster's deleted comment (which he'd posted inadvertently under the name of his blog):
"So you're pro-child porn? Kinda undermines ur bitching at tmz but oh well! Bravo to the friesster! Cross what line? Journalists aren't above the law. Are you saying you would harbor a porn pusher?"
Frown face? Now really, was there anything we'd written that would warrant such an attack? Remember, this is a reporter for The New York Times, a man who's made himself a public figure by airing his laundry across the Internet while toeing the line that "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas."
Would a trusted, objective reporter suggest someone is "pro-child porn" for reporting a story that he himself promoted on his blog (in a post that begins with the line, "I lied to you people a couple of weeks ago...")? Oh, right. He called us much worse for daring to ask questions about the death of Danny Gans.
Excuse me I know how much you love to dis Mr. Frienss and by all means continue to do so if he crosses that line
ReplyDeleteJust don't understand what line he crossed in turning in his uncle and then writing about it?
I am confussed
I would have turned in my own child had he done something like that so I don't understand what you issue is with his actions on THIS particular event?
I would like to point out that that "Anonymous" comment was NOT Steve Friess but was in fact me
Thank you for your time
Mary
The Freisster is the one who wrote a cover story in the LVW about crossing the line of family loyalty and his his ethical concerns about it.
ReplyDeleteTB pointed out they weren't judging. They were just reporting.
Oh I see, it’s not that you’re saying he shouldn’t have turned in his own Uncle?
ReplyDeleteYou’re just pointing out that he’s a Hypocrite
Ok, NOW I understand, I was unaware of that article as I do NOT read the Las Vegas Review or anything else he writes.
If it hadn’t been for TB I wouldn’t have know he turned in his own flesh and blood, but as far as turning in his uncle goes?
I don’t care what other form of slime he is I still say Bravo to that little gesture, get the perv off the street.
Thanks for the clarification
Mary
Mary you missed my point!
ReplyDeleteTB didn't tell the world that the Friesster turned in his flesh and blood. The Friesster did in a front page article (and got paid for it).
And The Friesster said he "crossed the line:
"The only obvious call was to the U.S. Marshal’s office here in Las Vegas. As a journalist, I had called them countless times.
"This, of course, was different. This time, I was a citizen who had to explain that my uncle was a fugitive from Palm Beach County who fled to avoid child porn charges and had now contacted me. What do I do?"
Who said he was a hipocrite? Not me! Not TB! But did The Friesster think so?
Read his article!
I did!
TB rocks!
I'm a little confused. What is unethical about turning in a child pornographer? Whether he's a relative or not--there is only one right thing to do. Are you saying it's unethical to write about it?
ReplyDeleteI did read the article and that is the very definition of a Hypocrite
ReplyDelete"hyp•o•crite
ˈhɪp ə krɪtShow Spelled[hip-uh-krit] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2.
a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements."
I'm sorry Miles but that is what you're (TB)are calling him by pointing everyone to his article and I agree he is a Hypocrite
But I say one more child molester off the street is a GOOD thing I don't care how he got off the street.
Now if they would just put him in with the general population at the prison we wouldn't have to worry about parole, those big boys don't cotton none to child molesters
Mary
Ok?
ReplyDeleteSo what you’re saying is that TB is an “Instigator”, it still doesn’t change the fact that Steve Friess is a Hypocrite and I don’t understand why you’re getting so riled up about that fact.
I would say no one here is particularly fond of the fella so it’s a bit of a surprise that you’re protesting so much on whether or not TB called or should I say “Insinuated” that the man was a Hypocrite otherwise why bother pointing anyone in the direction of his article?
Steve Friess IS a Hypocrite
Mary
Sorry, I'm still confused. Would someone please explain what was unethical and where is the hypocricy? I am unfamiliar with this writer and I'm missing something.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 12:10 we know you're The Friesster!
ReplyDeleteI don't see the hypocrisy either. I think TBaby pointed out the article because you were making a big deal about the decision.
Would you have turned in your dad or husband so easily? THAT is the question I think
12:19, Sorry, but no I am not 'The Freisster'. I am an occasional TB reader who found the story and comments interesting and am trying to understand both points of view. But, I personally WOULD turn in someone I knew was involved in kiddie porn--my husband OR my grandfather--but luckily my family is only disfunctional, not perverse!!
ReplyDeleteAre there two points of view?
ReplyDeleteSomeone keeps insisting that TB judged the Friesster.
I don't see that.
I think the Friesster did the right thing, but the Friesster feels guilty because it's his mother's brother.