A former Journal writer stands by his reporting.
David Pfeffer does not support the Minuteman Project.
All you have to do is ask him. Just don't forget to bring a tape recorder.
"I am grateful to private citizens who are bringing the issue to the front burner," Pfeffer tells SFR. "What I ***image1***observed was ordinary people doing the job the federal government refuses to do, which is secure the border…God knows we need something to secure our borders."
See? We told you.
But some people are not convinced. Which is why members of the City's Immigration Committee addressed a letter to Pfeffer at the May 11 City Council meeting criticizing his visit with volunteers of the Minuteman Project group that has been monitoring illegal alien activity on the Arizona border.
The scolding was the latest ripple of controversy in the wake of Pfeffer's Arizona vacation but it's merely a swell in comparison to the tidal wave that washed over the city councilor after the Journal Santa Fe published an April 5 article titled "Pfeffer Wants to Patrol Border" based on an April 4 interview-which was not recorded-between Pfeffer and thenreporter John Huddy.
Pfeffer vehemently denied the story's assertions that he supported the Minuteman Project and that he was interested in bringing a similar project to New Mexico. In a lengthy Letter to the Editor published April 6, Pfeffer claimed that large portions of the Journal story were either "totally false" or "complete fabrications."
On April 7, Huddy was fired. Mark Oswald-chief of the Journal's North Bureau-told SFR [Know, April 13: "Interesting Timing"] that Huddy's termination had nothing to do with the Pfeffer story.
"That was laughable," Huddy says. "It's obvious that the Journal thinks its readers are idiots. To fire me the day after I'm embroiled in this and then say it has nothing to do with this story, that's a joke."
In the Journal's April 6 follow-up story, Oswald offered a curt defense of Huddy's story in saying, "The notes support the story we published." Oswald has declined to discuss the specifics of the dismissal though he says, "I can say that the reasons for [Huddy's] departure were in motion before the Pfeffer thing came up. The timing was just unfortunate."
Huddy admits he "butted heads" with management for more than a year before his termination after his criticism of copyediting mistakes and his complaints that another reporter "big-footed" him on a story. But Huddy says the primary conflict centered on his differences with Oswald in matters of personality, editorial opinion and political ideology.
"Mark and I had been at odds for a long time but there was never any threat of termination," Huddy says. "We had disagreements but they were always kept at a professional level…I felt that because of his dislike of me, if given the opportunity he would do everything he could to railroad me. This was his chance."
Huddy alleges the Journal suppressed information that would have provided evidence of Pfeffer's support for the Minuteman Project and thus vindicated his story. Instead, Huddy says, the paper cowed to Pfeffer's lawsuit threats.
"Whenever the word 'lawsuit' comes up, they cringe," Huddy says. "I felt that the newspaper-faced with a purported lawsuit of which there was no substantiation- in order to protect its own legal interests sacrificed its journalistic integrity."
Huddy says that information from two sources-KUNM 89.9 FM reporter Angela Taylor and Minuteman Spokesman Gray Deacon-was purposely kept out of the paper's initial follow-up and an additional story Huddy had proposed.
"[I told Mark] this guy's lying, we're placating his lies and I can prove that he's lying, we need to run this," Huddy says. "Mark told me 'Unless we're doing a follow- up story-which we're not-you're to do no more reporting. The story's done.'"
The purported evidence rested on the testimony of Taylor and Deacon. Oswald confirms speaking with Taylor before the Journal's follow-up story though he balks at the suggestion that there was a concerted effort by the Journal to bury the information.
"I wouldn't say that we were suppressing anything," Oswald says. "I'm not saying that John wasn't generating good information…[But] any other information about what Pfeffer may or may not have said to someone else really didn't concern what was said in that particular interview between John and Councilor Pfeffer."
Taylor likewise told Oswald that she could not directly confirm the validity of the interview Huddy did with Pfeffer on a bench outside of City Hall.
"One thing I did tell him though was of my experience watching Pfeffer's vacillations on this issue," Taylor says. "I wouldn't be surprised if two different reporters from two different papers wrote two different stories with two different tones from this one man's point of view."
In his letter to the editor, Pfeffer describes hitching a ride to the Minuteman Project with a radio journalist. That radio journalist was Angela Taylor. And while Taylor says she didn't hear Pfeffer offer any direct words of support, she wasn't surprised by anything in Huddy's story.
"Nothing struck me as being out of character from what I experienced being with Pfeffer in Arizona," Taylor says. "Although [Pfeffer] was very, very careful with how he used his language. Did he ever say 'I support the Minutemen'? No. He said 'I'm very grateful for what the Minutemen are trying to do.' I interpret that as support."
As the controversy gathered steam on April 5, Huddy says he did "what any good reporter would do" and picked up the phone. He contacted Gray Deacon, a Minuteman Project spokesman, who had reportedly interacted with Pfeffer during his visit to Arizona. That interview he taped.
"[Pfeffer] said he was very impressed with what we were doing and that he supported it 100 percent," Deacon says on the tape. "I was very impressed with the man. He seemed very thoughtful and seemed very knowledgeable about the problems we face with illegal aliens entering our country."
Huddy brought the tape to Oswald and proposed a follow-up to contradict the assertions in Pfeffer's letter to the editor, but he says Oswald declined to pursue the matter any further.
"I understand that I'm intertwined in this but I'm not trying to be a martyr here," Huddy says. "It's ruined my career in Santa Fe, but I'll move on. This is about a story of public interest and concern that was suppressed by the state's largest newspaper."
When SFR appraised Kelly McBride-the Ethics Group Leader at the Poynter Institute-of the situation, she said the decision to not pursue an additional story on the Pfeffer situation was correct.
"I never think it's a good idea to go tit-for-tat," McBride says. "I think it's enough if the paper forcibly said 'we stand by the story and we have evidence to back it up.'"
Moreover, the testimony of Taylor and Deacon wouldn't have provided direct vindication for Huddy's initial interview with Pfeffer.
As to that interview, Pfeffer says, "I did not see [Huddy] write anything down. He referred to his notes-in my recollection-only for questions to ask me."
It's a charge that Huddy calls "ludicrous."
"I absolutely took notes like any reporter would," Huddy says. "I have several pages of them to prove it. I didn't write any questions out, so he apparently pulled that out of thin air. That is just David Pfeffer making assertions that he can't back up."
Despite Huddy's relatively pristine track record of reporting that spans nearly 10 years in print journalism, the suspicious timing of his dismissal is clouded by the long-standing conflict with his superiors.
"Certainly the timing of the firing does bring the story somewhat into question," says Gary Hill, the chairman of the Society of Professional Journalists Ethics Committee. "However, I do know that it is pretty seldom that a single story can lead to this type of drastic outcome. More likely there was some aspect of dealing with this story that caused it to be the last straw."
As for Huddy, he says his passion for covering Santa Fe issues hasn't subsided. Which is why he still attends City Council meetings.
"How pathetic is that?" Huddy laughs. "I'm no longer the City Hall reporter but I'm still watching the meetings because I have an interest in the issues. To me it's still about truth and it's still about integrity…I might leave this town with this cloud of controversy over my head, but at least I leave with my character and integrity. At least to the last moment I was still striving to get the truth out there."
