Two day later, having combed through ALL of George Latimer’s social media postings, I prepared a follow story on Latimer’s hypocrisy:
From: Robert Cox <robertcox@talkofthesound.com>
Date: Oct 18, 2017, at 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: Inquiry on your 7/21 traffic collision in New Rochelle
To: George Latimer
George
As you have appeared to have delayed responding to my questions about the car crash from Saturday to Monday under the false pretense of needing to speak to a lawyer first, I would no longer hold a story at your request.
I went through your Twitter feed and can see that the day after the car crash you posted a photo on your Twitter account which indicates that you took a photo while driving on I-684 South towards I-287 and then tweeted about having been in New Rochelle. This appears to show you operating your mobile phone while driving down a highway in Westchester County (distracted driving).
I also see a tweet with you at some insurance industry event on distracted driving.
Ken Jenkins compared your crash with the Venus Williams which entails a wrongful death lawsuit involving a fatal crash where the plaintiff attorneys are seeking to obtain mobile phone records from Ms. Williams and are alleging that she was engaged in distracted driving.
Senate Bill S2306 provides for the field testing for use of mobile telephones and portable electronic devices while driving after an accident or collision to allow police to determine if anyone involved in a collision was engaged using their phone (distracted driving), that drivers in NY will be deemed to have given consent to testing of their phones and that refusal to turn over the phone will result an immediate revocation of the driver’s license.
Did you engage in distracted driving that day and did it play a role in the collision?
Did you turn over your phone for inspection by the police?
Will you provide me a copy of your phone records for that day or otherwise make them public?
If you are not willing to allow for inspection of your phone records from that, on what basis are you co-sponsoring legislation to require drivers in New York to turn over their records?
Thanks
Robert Cox
Publisher and Managing Editor
Talk of the Sound
I was still affording him an opportunity to tell his side of the story but I made it clear that he had lost all credibility as far as needing extended time to answer.
Latimer’s reply was predictable.
From: George Latimer
Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: Inquiry on your 7/21 traffic collision in New Rochelle
To: Robert Cox <robertcox@talkofthesound.com>
Bob
Since you are not an objective journalist I have no further interest in speaking with you on any matter. You have lied and fabricated theories without merit merely to advance your interests and your favored candidate.
I was awaiting legal advice when your blog hit article appeared; telling me that you merely want the aura of consulting both sides while loading your rhetoric. You have no interest in fair journalism. So I decided to speak with those media outlets that do attempt to be fair.
George
As readers have the full exchange of emails prior to this one, it should be clear that George’s “ I was awaiting legal advice” canard is one he was attempting to set up from the beginning. He had no intention of answering my questions but wanted to paint himself as the victim of my unfair impatience and arbitrary deadline — except that I kept offering him more time until he got frustrated and lashed out.
As for being “objective”, if a person lies and I write an article that says the person lied, that IS objective. That said, I do not claim to be or even strive to be what media elites and politicians label an “objective journalist”. In my experience that label is a fraud to create an illusion of balance in published reporting that ignores editorial decision-making on whether to cover a story, who to quote, what sources are conferred with an aura of “credibility” or not. A bigger discussion for another day. My goal is not to be a so-called “objective journalist” but transparent, fair and accurate. That said, if Latimer will only talk to journalists who are truly “objective” he will be awfully lonely.
From: Robert Cox <robertcox@talkofthesound.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: Inquiry on your 7/21 traffic collision in New Rochelle
To: George Latimer
George,
If you want to go this route so be it, but the record will show that you were given plenty of time to consult with an attorney and that BEFORE you had even sought the advice of an attorney you had already indicated that you were not responding because you believed that article would be some sort of political hit piece. I realize politicians are used to having it both ways but you cannot both refuse to respond and then say you were not given time to (respond)
The article is factual and based on public records and interviews with named sources so, as far as your claim that I “lied and fabricated theories without merit”, feel free to try and cite a single example in the article that supports your false claim.
I will simply note in future articles that you decline to comment.
Thanks
Robert Cox
Publisher and Managing Editor
Talk of the Sound
I ran the article on Latimer’s “do as I say not as I do” hypocrisy on the issue of distracted driving soon after his email on October 18th.
While all this was going on, I heard a story about a prominent public figure in New Rochelle, a Democrat, expressing surprise that Latimer was behind the wheel of a car at all. That sounded promising.
Who is George Latimer? Part VII
Who is George Latimer? Table of Contents