On agendas and full disclosure

Generally I don't respond to comments about blog postings because I'd rather leave that to readers. But Walter Olson over at Overlawyered, and Wave Maker in the comments section of this blog, have raised a couple of points that I think I should address for the sake of transparency.

First, based on an item I wrote about a New York Times story on patent lawsuits, Walter calls me pious and suggests that I think only journalists I disapprove of should disclose their sources for story tips, the implication being that I don't meet the standard myself.

If I haven't been transparent in anything I've written, I apologize, because I do believe in full disclosure and try never to rely on unnamed sources if I can avoid it. For the most part, though, I don't really get too many tips. Most of my story and blog ideas come from old-fashioned reporting: making calls, reading the paper, attending far too many dreary Federalist Society events, and from my own hunches that then lead to more reporting. The only item I've written lately that came off a tip was the one about Bill Lerach's complaint about his treatment by Fortune magazine. Since I posted part of the letter he wrote to the editors, I thought it was pretty clear where that little item came from. (All this is not to say, though, that I wouldn't welcome some tips!)

In comments on the same patent lawsuit post, Wave Maker suggests rather snidely that I have an agenda here. Well, yes, of course I do. Just to make it clear, though, here's what it is: Selling books, while attempting to provide an entertaining and informative news outlet focused on the legal world.

I am not an activist or affiliated with any activist groups or even a lawyer (which might explain much of my ignorance on some of these issues). I have never taken a dime from a trial lawyer or any of their affiliated organizations. I always buy my own lunch when meeting with sources, and I have virtually nothing to gain financially from this blog, even if it does help sell a few books. It would have to sell more than 10,000 copies before I ever see another dime from my publisher, a highly unlikely scenario.

Unlike the folks at the Manhattan Institute or AEI or Common Good who are professional and well-paid tort reform proponents, I don't have any corporate or foundation sponsors. I am paid solely by the publications I write for, including the publisher of my book, which gave me a scandalously small advance for a book they are pretty sure won't sell. I did win a small research grant from the nonpartisan Fund for Investigative Journalism, but basically, my book has been a huge money-losing enterprise. As for the blog, it has thus far grossed $45.62 from Google ads. I would be living on the street at this point but for my very generous husband, who has subsidized the whole operation.

Obviously I have opinions about the subject that has consumed so much of my life for the past couple of years, but at heart, I am a writer, not an ideologue. My decision to delve into tort reform and other civil justice issues started with my own observation that a lot of the journalism in this area is really, really bad. I have tried to bring it up a notch and to provide a different perspective. Whether or not I've succeeded is obviously up for debate.