Fact Checking Mark Bowden's Curious Vanity Fair Article on Stephanie Lazarus, Part VIII

 Vanity Fair July 2012 cover  (Photo credit: Vanity Fair.com)

Complete Series on Fact Checking Mark Bowden's Article HERE.

Continued from Part VII...

All news organizations occasionally make mistakes. T&T is no exception. When readers notify me I’ve made a factual error, I apologize and correct it. I consider it my responsibility to report as accurately and transparently as possible. I believe this policy enhances my credibility as a journalist.

In September, Poynter called Mark Bowden “one of the best narrative non-fiction writers working today.”  Vanity Fair is a widely read media outlet with a reputation for publishing serious journalism.

It’s a mystery to me why Vanity Fair has not fully acknowledged the extent of the problems with Mark Bowden’s article on the Stephanie Lazarus case.  At this point, a year into this series, Vanity Fair cannot plead ignorance.

Since Cullen Murphy, Mr. Bowden’s editor, and Mr. Bowden were  both unwilling to answer my questions on the record, there was only one person left at Vanity Fair to contact.  On June 2nd,  I emailed Beth Kseniak, Vanity Fair’s Executive Director of Public Relations:

Dear Ms. Kseniak,

If you remember, we corresponded last October.  Thank you again for forwarding those questions to Cullen Murphy.  I now have some questions for Graydon Carter.  Could you please forward the following email to Mr. Carter.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Betsy A. Ross
Founder & Owner, Trials & Tribulations


Dear Mr. Carter,

I’m writing you in your capacity as Editor-in-Chief of Vanity Fair magazine. I’m a journalist with a small true crime website, Trials & Tribulations, that reports on homicide trials in Los Angeles.  I have some questions and hope you will answer them for my readers.

I am writing you about an article by Mark Bowden that was published in your magazine in July 2012. The article was about the murder of Sherri Rasmussen, a case that I covered extensively. Last year a former LAPD detective, Stephanie Lazarus, was convicted of Sherri’s murder.

When I first read Mr. Bowden’s article, numerous factual errors caught my attention. I asked some questions of Vanity Fair in what became a series of posts between June and August 2012. Vanity Fair never responded.  I did not learn the name of Mr. Bowden’s editor, Cullen Murphy, until I was contacted by Poynter for a story that ran on September 28th. Around that time, Vanity Fair corrected a few of the factual errors I had pointed out in June, but not all of them. The corrections appeared only on Vanity Fair’s website and not in the print magazine.  Some of the quotes attributed to Mr. Murphy in the Poynter story were puzzling to me.

I contacted Mr. Murphy three times via email in October. He did not answer my questions on the record. 

Later that month I obtained Mr. Bowden’s email address. Between late October and mid-November, I emailed Bowden three times. He never responded.

Shortly after, I was on the website of my favorite local bookstore, Vroman’s, in Pasadena. I read that Mr. Bowden was scheduled to appear there on his book tour for The Finish. 

I went to Vroman’s on November 17th. I purchased Mr. Bowden’s book and listened to his remarks.  Afterwards, I stood in line to get my book signed. I introduced myself to Mr. Bowden. Mr. Bowden acknowledged that he had received my emails, but he declined to answer questions about his Vanity Fair article. (He did however sign my book.)  I emailed Mr. Bowden one more time after the book signing. He never responded.

Mr. Bowden said at Vroman’s, “I found over and over again in my career, that the story -- if I told a story well enough -- that it is remembered. And that it enters our popular memory. It becomes a piece of history.”

Mr. Carter, here are my questions:

Why have Mark Bowden and Vanity Fair refused to answer questions on the record?   Who at Vanity Fair will answer questions about Mr. Bowden’s article? 

How did so many factual errors make it into print?  What fact checking did Vanity Fair do before publishing Mr. Bowden’s article on the Rasmussen murder?

Why has Vanity Fair not run a print correction?   When does it plan to do so?

Thank you very much for your time.  I will publish in full any response you send me. I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

Betsy A. Ross
Founder & Owner, Trials & Tribulations

Ms. Kseniak wrote back four days later, on June 6th:

Dear Betsy:

We feel that Cullen Murphy addressed your questions in his email to you.  We have also made the corresponding corrections to the online article (where people will be reading it), and appended a paragraph to the article, which details every correction.

All best,

Beth

I replied on June 10th:

Dear Ms. Kseniak,

Thank you for your response.

I believe you are referring to Mr. Murphy’s email to me from last October.  I honored his request to keep that email off the record.  Although you say it answered all my questions, I respectfully disagree. 

Some of the questions Mr. Murphy did not answer were about his initial statement to Poynter. This is the same statement Mr. Murphy later admitted to Poynter was an inadvertent “red herring.”  Mr. Murphy’s red herring remains the most detailed explanation that Vanity Fair has offered publicly about the accuracy of Mr. Bowden’s article.

Vanity Fair’s silence suggests the magazine is more concerned about protecting Mr. Bowden’s reputation than setting the record straight.  Given Mr. Bowden and Vanity Fair’s prominence, what the magazine publishes carries a great deal of weight.  It’s surprising to me that Mr. Carter, as editor in chief, wouldn’t be more concerned about the accuracy of Vanity Fair’s journalism.

It is true that Vanity Fair corrected a number of errors in the online edition, however, the correction was incomplete.  If Vanity’s Fair’s intent was to put the correction where people would read it, why not publish it in print?  Why is the online correction at the bottom of Mr. Bowden’s article, rather than the top?

I hope Mr. Carter will reconsider and respond to my questions. I hope to hear from him soon.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
Betsy A. Ross
Founder & Owner, Trials & Tribulations

Ms. Kseniak responded on June 12th:

Dear Ms. Ross,

We feel that we have, to our satisfaction, set the record straight, and done so in such a way that will reach future readers of the story in the best fashion. We would note that the small errors that have been corrected had no bearing on the thrust of Mark Bowden's story. Further, one of our editors wrote to you privately, many months ago, to provide background on the reporting and fact-checking. We really don't have anything else to say on the matter.

All best,

Beth

I replied on June 17th:

Dear Ms. Kseniak,

Thank you for your response.

Twice, you have referred to Mr. Murphy’s private email to me, as if it sufficiently explained the mistakes in Mr. Bowden’s article. This puts me in a difficult position journalistically. Obviously, Mr. Bowden’s article for Vanity Fair was published on the record. Mr. Murphy’s comments to Poynter were also on the record, as were my questions to Mr. Murphy. Nevertheless, Mr. Murphy chose to respond privately. 

To be clear, Mr. Murphy’s email did not answer any of the questions I asked him about Mr. Bowden’s article. Mr. Murphy seemed more concerned about protecting Mr. Bowden’s reputation than the accuracy of Vanity Fair’s journalism.

I respectfully disagree with your claim that the errors were small and “had no bearing on the thrust of Mark Bowden’s story.”  Among the facts that Mr. Bowden got wrong were when Lazarus’s relationship with the victim’s husband ended, and whether Lazarus took her gun to the interview. This last error, which I pointed out almost a year ago, remains uncorrected online.

The online version of Mr. Bowden’s article still includes numerous inaccurate quotes by Lazarus and the detectives. The discrepancies are more extensive than Mr. Murphy acknowledged to Poynter, and Vanity Fair has admitted to its readers. Anyone who watches the video and compares it to Mr. Bowden’s article can see they don’t match.

Are Vanity Fair’s editorial standards this lax for all of its journalists, or just Mr. Bowden?

I realize I can’t force Mr. Carter to answer my questions. However, I hope he will reconsider.  As before, I promise to publish in full any response that Vanity Fair sends me.

Sincerely,
Betsy A. Ross
Founder & Owner, Trials & Tribulations

That was two weeks ago. Mr. Bowden, Mr. Murphy, Ms. Kseniak and Mr. Carter all have my email address. I will update T&T readers if I hear from anyone at Vanity Fair.

To be continued....

Fact Checking Mark Bowden's Curious Vanity Fair Article on Stephanie Lazarus, Part VII

Complete Series on Fact Checking Mark Bowden's Article HERE.

Continued from Part VI...

As my readers know, the Rasmussen family's lawsuit against the LAPD ended on February 20th, when the California Supreme Court declined to take up the family's appeal. The California Courts of Appeal had rejected the Rasmussen's lawsuit in November 2012, on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired.

Thankfully, there is no statute of limitations on crimes against journalism, so I've decided to revisit this series.

Mark Bowden’s article on the Stephanie Lazarus case ran in the July 2012 issue of Vanity Fair.  The first time I read Bowden's article, something immediately struck me as off.  I began writing about it a few weeks later, pointing out a number of factual mistakes in Bowden's piece. I also pointed out a number of places in the article where Bowden's quotes did not match the official court transcript of Stephanie's 2009 pre-arrest interview. It was one of Bowden's misquotes that initially inspired me to fact-check the rest of the article. Vanity Fair did not respond or make any corrections.

A week later I wrote another post, raising more questions. Vanity Fair again ignored me.  Additional posts followed in July (Part III) and August (Part IV).  In September, Poynter picked up the story.  Craig Silverman's lengthy post included numerous quotes from Cullen Murphy, Bowden's editor at Vanity Fair, but no quotes from Bowden himself.  Vanity Fair offered a series of changing explanations for how Bowden's article came to be published with so many mistakes. Some of Vanity Fair's statements impugned my credibility, which I found ironic, since Craig Silverman's findings substantiated my claims. Cullen Murphy also told Poynter that at Vanity Fair, “We take fact-checking very seriously, and when issues arise we look into them carefully.”

After Poynter’s story ran, Vanity Fair quietly made some corrections to the online version of Bowden’s article but left many others uncorrected.  To date, Vanity Fair has refused to run any correction in the print magazine.

Last October, I contacted Cullen Murphy via email and tried to engage him. Murphy would not speak with me on the record about Bowden's article.  I expressed my interest in communicating with Bowden via email. I made it clear that I was very interested to hear from Bowden, but it would need to be on the record.

Through all of this, Bowden has been curiously silent. Until recently, I'd never met Mark Bowden.  For the record, I have nothing against him personally. I think he's an amazing storyteller. He's also a professor of journalism.  I thought I would try to contact him directly.

Through a source, I obtained Mark Bowden’s email address. I first emailed him on October 25th:

Dear Mr. Bowden,

I’m sorry I haven’t written you sooner.  I only recently learned your email address. 

I understand you were interested in having a conversation with me.  Was there something specific you wanted to ask or tell me?

Sincerely,
Betsy A. Ross, Owner
Trials & Tribulations Blog

When I didn’t hear back, I thought maybe I had his address wrong.  So I wrote him again on November 5th, this time cc’ing Cullen Murphy, whose email address I did have.

Dear Mr. Bowden,

I emailed you on October 25th (see below).  In case you missed it or I had your address wrong, I am cc-ing your editor at Vanity Fair, Cullen Murphy, who I corresponded with last month.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

Betsy A. Ross, Owner
Trials & Tribulations Blog

On November 9th, I tried one more time:

Dear Mr. Bowden,

I’m disappointed I’ve not heard back from you. 

Was there something specific you wanted to tell me? Is there anything at all you would like to say to my readers?

I hope to include your perspective in my next post.  If you respond by Tuesday evening, I will publish your response in full.

Sincerely,
Betsy A. Ross, Owner
Trials & Tribulations Blog

A week later I learned that Bowden's book tour for his latest book, The Finish, included a stop at Vroman’s Bookstore in Pasadena on November 17th.  I thought I would take the opportunity to introduce myself to Bowden and see if he would engage me and hopefully speak on the record. I've always loved going to Vroman's, a literary landmark that’s been in business for 118 years.  I’ve been there many times to meet authors and get books signed.  I marked the date on my calendar.

That Saturday afternoon I arrived early at the bookstore and bought a copy of The Finish. Not knowing how Bowden would react when I introduced myself, I took a friend for moral support. I climbed the stairs to the lecture area and took a seat in the back row.  I got comfortable and waited for the lecture to begin.

Bowden spoke extemporaneously for half an hour about his book and his career in journalism. Bowden said something about his writing becoming history that seems relevant to his article on the Stephanie Lazarus case. He said, “I found over and over again in my career, that the story -- if I told a story well enough -- that it is remembered. And that it enters our popular memory. It becomes a piece of history.”

After Bowden's remarks and some audience questions, I got in the long line of people waiting to get their books signed.  It was evident that Bowden was enjoying the attention of his fans. The man in line in front of me was very excited to meet Bowden and asked for a picture with him.  Smiling, Bowden stood beside his fan for the photo op. And then it was my turn.  I stepped up to the table, smiled at Bowden and said, “I’m so glad I came to hear you speak today. Hello Mr. Bowden, I’m Betsy Ross, the blogger.”

Bowden's smile immediately left his face when I introduced myself.  “Oh... hi,” he replied.  I reminded Bowden that I had sent him some emails.  Bowden confirmed that he had received them by telling me,  “Well, you asked if I had any questions of you, and I don’t.” He then added: “But if you had any questions for me."  I asked him if he would answer an email. Bowden was non-committal. There were people waiting in line behind me, so I thanked Bowden and handed him my book.

The next day I wrote to Bowden again:

Dear Mr. Bowden,

I enjoyed listening to you speak at Vroman’s Bookstore in Pasadena yesterday, as well as meeting you in person.

During our brief conversation, you said you had not replied to my earlier emails because you didn’t have questions for me. You then asked if I had any questions for you.  I have several questions about your article on the Stephanie Lazarus case.

In a story published by Poynter in late September, your editor at Vanity Fair, Cullen Murphy, provided the following detailed statement:

"The central charge made by T&T is that Mark Bowden does not accurately quote the interrogation of Stephanie Lazarus and in one instance even adds his own material. This is false... The author of the T&T post relied on a transcript of the interrogation. Bowden, rather than use some unknown person’s transcript—transcripts are notoriously unreliable—went to the actual videos of the interrogation to confirm his quotations. Further, to make sure the speakers were being identified correctly, the quotations were read back to Detectives Stearns and Jaramillo of the LAPD. When the article was published, Vanity Fair put the videos online to make the source readily available. On review, we confirmed that Bowden’s quotations are indeed accurate and that the transcript is not. (We did find that two sentences in a single quotation in the VF piece had been inadvertently transposed, with no impact on meaning.)"

In a second statement to Poynter, Murphy acknowledged “we were mistaken” and apologized for “inadvertently introducing a red herring.”

I don’t understand how such a detailed statement could be made inadvertently. Did you provide the information for Murphy’s initial statement? To your knowledge, is any part of Murphy’s initial statement true?

Are you aware that there are additional quotes you attribute to Stephanie Lazarus and Detectives Jaramillo and Stearns that do not match the video and official transcript? The official transcript I’m referring to was released to the public in November 2010, eighteen months before your article hit newsstands. Can you explain how these inaccurate quotes came to be published?   As a journalist, do you still stand behind your account of the interview?

Thank you for signing my book and I hope to hear from you soon.  If you respond by next Sunday (November 25th), I will include your full response in my next post.

Sincerely,
Betsy A. Ross, Owner
Trials and Tribulations

I'm still waiting to hear from Bowden. 

Continued in Part VIII....

Fact Checking Mark Bowden's Curious Vanity Fair Article on Stephanie Lazarus, Part VI

Complete Series on Fact Checking Mark Bowden's Article HERE.

Continued from Part V....

Yes T&T readers, there's still more to write about Mark Bowden's Curious Stephanie Lazarus article.

Bowden’s article ran in the July 2012 issue of Vanity Fair.  Late last month, Craig Silverman at Poynter published a detailed story investigating my claims about Bowden’s article.   I am very grateful to Craig for backing up my findings and getting some answers on the record from Vanity Fair.  It was from reading Craig’s article that I first learned the name of Mark Bowden’s editor, Cullen Murphy.   Speaking for Vanity Fair, Mr. Murphy told Poynter, “We’re always grateful to have errors called to our attention . . . We take fact-checking very seriously, and when issues arise, we look into them carefully.”

Some of Vanity Fair’s other quotes seemed odd to me, and raised additional questions I wanted to ask the magazine. A few days after Craig’s story was published, I emailed him for Cullen Murphy’s contact information.  Since Craig was away, I didn’t receive a response from him until October 10th. Craig told me his initial contact at Vanity Fair was Beth Kseniak, the magazine’s Executive Director of Public Relations.  I immediately sent Beth an email, introducing myself and asking her to forward my questions to Mr. Murphy.  I explained to Beth that I wanted to give Vanity Fair plenty of time to respond, and if Mr. Murphy replied by October 15th, I would include his answers in my next post.  Beth wrote me back that she had forwarded my email to Mr. Murphy.

Here is the email I sent to Mr. Murphy on October 10th:

Dear Mr. Murphy,

I’m sorry not to have introduced myself to you sooner.  I only learned your name recently, when I read Craig Silverman’s piece for Poynter.

I was glad to learn that Vanity Fair is always grateful to have errors pointed out, and that you take fact checking very seriously. Now that I know you are Mark Bowden’s editor at Vanity Fair, I wanted to ask you a few questions, and give you the opportunity to comment in my next post. 

When Poynter first contacted you, you told them:

“The central charge made by T&T is that Mark Bowden does not accurately quote the interrogation of Stephanie Lazarus and in one instance even adds his own material. This is false... The author of the T&T post relied on a transcript of the interrogation. Bowden, rather than use some unknown person’s transcript—transcripts are notoriously unreliable—went to the actual videos of the interrogation to confirm his quotations. Further, to make sure the speakers were being identified correctly, the quotations were read back to Detectives Stearns and Jaramillo of the LAPD. When the article was published, Vanity Fair put the videos online to make the source readily available. On review, we confirmed that Bowden’s quotations are indeed accurate and that the transcript is not. (We did find that two sentences in a single quotation in the VF piece had been inadvertently transposed, with no impact on meaning.)”

Poynter verified that the official transcript matched the video perfectly.  You then admitted you were mistaken and apologized for “inadvertently introducing a red herring.”

My questions are below.

1. In what way was your initial statement “inadvertent?” 

2. When did Bowden speak to Detectives Stearns and Jaramillo to verify their quotations? Did Bowden also ask the detectives about their experience interviewing Stephanie?

3. Why did Bowden use some unknown person’s transcript of Stephanie Lazarus’s interview, rather than the official court transcript which Judge Perry made public in November 2010?

4. Have all the quotations in Bowden’s article been checked against the official transcript?

You also told Poynter:

"Having gone back again to compare it’s hard to see a substantive issue. Much verbiage and crosstalk has been cut out for concision and clarity—pretty standard when dealing with a long, rambling, and shaggy interrogation—but the quotations used in Bowden’s text correspond with relevant portions of the video. Some things are hard to make out, and there may be an occasional small variance, but a fair reading would conclude that the quotes track accurately and correctly capture the dynamic of the interrogation. There has been no distortion."

5. The primary focus of Bowden’s piece is Stephanie’s Lazarus’s 2009 interrogation. Can you cite another piece of journalism in Vanity Fair, or any other publication, in which a “long, rambling, and shaggy interrogation” was compressed in this way, without disclosure that it had been?

You also told Poynter:

“We take fact-checking very seriously, and when issues arise we look into them carefully.”

6. How carefully has Vanity Fair looked into Bowden’s article?

7. Did Vanity Fair fact check Bowden’s article before it went to press?

In his article, Craig Silverman said he raised two errors with you. But I noticed Vanity Fair corrected four errors online.

8. How did Vanity Fair decide which errors to correct, and why did Vanity Fair only correct four?

9. Are you aware there are at least five more significant factual errors in Bowden’s article that remain uncorrected?

Thank you very much for your time. I would appreciate it if you could please respond by Wednesday, when I plan to publish. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,
Betsy A. Ross, Owner
Trials & Tribulations Blog

On October 15th, I received a reply from Cullen Murphy, in which he requested to respond “privately and off the record.” I wrote Murphy back the same day:

Mr. Murphy,

Thank you for your response. I will honor your request not to publish what you emailed me. However, I am disappointed by your decision not to comment on the record.

To be clear, my sole intent in writing this series has been to keep the public record as accurate as possible, given the very serious circumstances of Sherri Rasmussen’s murder. I appreciate the background you provided, but it doesn’t acknowledge the scope of the problems with Bowden’s article, the factual errors that remain uncorrected, or your recent statements to Poynter. 

I hope you will reconsider, and answer my questions on the record. I think my questions are very reasonable. I will give you and Vanity Fair a few more days to decide. Please respond by Wednesday evening if you would like your perspective in the post.

Sincerely,
Betsy A. Ross, Owner
Trials & Tribulations Blog

Mr. Murphy wrote me back two days later:

Dear Ms. Ross,

I'm sorry that you're unable to take up the offer to have a conversation with Mark Bowden, and I've passed that information along to him.

Sincerely,

Cullen Murphy

I responded the same day, October 17th:

Dear Cullen,

I think you may have misunderstood my email. I'm perfectly willing to have a conversation with Mark Bowden about his article, but not off the record.  For transparency's sake, and so there's no confusion about who said what, I prefer to communicate via email.

To confirm, you have forwarded my questions to Bowden?

I know I had offered Vanity Fair until tonight to comment, but in case Bowden only received the questions today, I want to give him and the magazine plenty of time to respond. If you or Bowden answer my questions by Friday, I will include your comments in my next post.

Sincerely,
Betsy A. Ross, Owner
Trials & Tribulations Blog

Later that day, I noticed that Vanity Fair added numerous additional corrections to the online version of Mark Bowden’s article.  Vanity Fair offered no explanation for the timing of these new corrections. I received one more email from Mr. Murphy on Friday, but again, he declined to speak on the record.

I have one additional question for Vanity Fair:

10. Are you aware that one of your recent corrections is factually inaccurate? John Ruetten and Stephanie Lazarus did not take a trip together to Hawaii.  Stephanie traveled to Hawaii with her friend Greg, and John Ruetten independently met them there. Stephanie discusses this in her interview (see pages 28-29 of the official court transcript).

Continued in Part VII.....

Fact Checking Mark Bowden's Curious Vanity Fair Article on STEPHANIE LAZARUS - QUICK LINKS

This is a continuing series on Mark Bowden's July 2012 Vanity Fair article on the Stephanie Lazarus case, "A Case So Cold It Was Blue." Sprocket.

Part I documents the factual errors I found in Mr. Bowden's article.

Part II documents the subjective errors I found in Mr. Bowden's article, including his unsupported description of Lazarus as a "legendary" detective.

Part III lists the people that Mr. Bowden did not interview for his article and questions what interviews he based his article on.

Part IV notes that Vanity Fair has corrected some errors in its online version of Bowden's article, but  has not yet run a print correction.

Part V describes the Poynter story about T&T's series on Mr. Bowden's article. It also notes that Vanity Fair has corrected additional errors online, but still no print correction. Part V also documents Vanity Fair's visits to T&T.

Part VI recounts my emails to Cullen Murphy, Mr. Bowden's editor at Vanity Fair. Mr. Murphy declined to defend Mr. Bowden's article on the record.

Part VII recounts my emails to Mr. Bowden, as well as meeting him in person at Vroman's Bookstore in Pasadena, CA.

Part VIII details my emails to Beth Kseniak, Vanity Fair's Executive Director of Public Relations, and questions for Graydon Carter, Vanity Fair's editor in chief.