Bloomberg Does the Right Thing, Bids Farewell to Jessica Pressler
Posted on December 20th, 2014 in Uncategorized | 20 Comments »
Capital New York and others report that New York Magazine editor Adam Moss has informed his staff that Jessica Pressler—the writer who just reported on a high school kid who made $72 million trading the market, except that he didn’t—will be staying at New York.
She had already left the magazine prior to joining Bloomber’s financial investigative unit.
This means, of course, that Bloomberg made the right call and withdrew its job offer to Pressler.
The reason, I would guess, is not just because Pressler got fooled by such an obvious financial fake that it cast doubt on her reporting bonafides.
It’s also that Pressler had previously mocked her new employer, saying she understood it to be a place where, if you stayed there a year, they gave you a magazine to run into the ground (I’m not even sure what this is in reference to—Bloomberg Pursuits, possibly?).
And, when challenged on her reporting about the high school kid, Pressler was initially glib and dismissive—”the story is really theirs,” she said of New York, adding that “we’re not a financial magazine”—and then aggressive and abuse, tweeting “fuck all of you” to her Twitter skeptics.
Moss’s memo was released on the afternoon of Friday, December 19, probably in order to attract the least amount of news coverage possible.
Moss told his staff that “we feel very lucky to be keeping her on and look forward to publishing more of her with pride.”
I wonder if his staff feels the same way. In any event, it’s hard to imagine that Pressler will be there long. It’s tough to go back to a place you were leaving for greener pastures and then saddled with an embarrassing journalistic fiasco.
The larger point is this: Pressler can be a nice writer, but she’s snarky and self-important and unprofessional. “Fuck all of you”? What news organization would hire a reporter who tweeted that to her followers?
It is ironic, though: I’m told that one of the reasons Bloomberg hired Pressler was because of her substantial social media following. But if the reporter built that social media following by being deliberately shocking and obnoxious, can you then trust her to turn on a dime and suddenly become mature and responsible?
Apparently not.
20 Responses
12/20/2014 12:43 pm
The Poynter Institute has apparently given its “Error of the Year Award” to SRE’s article in Rolling Stone.
“It should go down as one of the most cautionary tales of confirmation bias in journalism. It’s also an example of how not to behave when your organization publishes a disastrous piece of reporting.”
I wonder if the award should be shared with Jessica Pressler for her folly as well, Richard?
12/20/2014 1:15 pm
Pressler shouldn’t be concerned about her future employment possibilities.
There are numerous high school boys that would be happy to hire her to head their PR department from the millions they have accumulated due to their investing prowess.
12/20/2014 4:07 pm
The only reason she got THAT much attention is because she was too arrogant to admit she made a terrible mistake
If she had said “i am sorry” from the beginning, people wouldn’t have taken that mistake so personal
So good for her.. She learned another lesson
12/20/2014 5:24 pm
What a joke-they extended her contract? Does no media outlet care about its reputation anymore? How hard would it be just to fire her, and give out a one sentence press release stating her immediate termination?
And Rolling Stone is still dark, SRE still ostensibly employed.
What a joke.
12/20/2014 6:43 pm
Roan, not only is SRE presumably still employed, but apparently she is “re-reporting” the story on behalf of Rolling Stone. I’m not sure which situation is more appalling. All in the wake of Rolling Stone’s lead general legal counsel Dana Rosen quietly moving to another firm, claiming innocence.
I wonder where this fabulist tendency comes from? Boredom with real stories? Laziness? Or is it really that hard of a life for freelance journalists, even for online magazines?
I still recall Tessa Miller’s tweet (who worked on Securro’s story in Daily Beast): “in a shocking twist of events, i have quite a bit of freelance budget left for the month. PITCH ME.” Maybe we should and write said stories too. That way atleast they will be more accurate.
12/20/2014 9:13 pm
> And Rolling Stone is still dark, SRE still ostensibly employed. What a joke.
Rolling Stone gave Stephen Glass a second chance. Maybe they will offer a job to Jessica Pressler.
“… in 2003, Glass briefly returned to journalism, writing an article about Canadian marijuana laws for Rolling Stone.”
Pressler may be good at everything except finance. I don’t follow her, so I can’t say.
12/20/2014 9:50 pm
Regarding profanity, I was thinking about that myself when I read the other post. When did it become OK for professional people to publicly cuss like a “drunken sailor.” Not that professionals have always been expletive free, but the reference to drunken sailors gets at the point that public cursing was once thought to be primarily a vice of lower economic classes.
12/21/2014 3:37 am
Sucker born every minute. You can purchase followers.
12/21/2014 4:28 am
Quote: “I wonder where this fabulist tendency comes from? Boredom with real stories? Laziness?”
That’s easy to answer. The ‘fabulist tendency’ comes from the simple fact that the real world doesn’t adequately comport with their prejudices. So they gin up fake stories which describe the world as they wish to believe it, not incidentally supplying easy, convenient targets along the way.
And Pressler? She belongs at New York Magazine.
12/21/2014 8:56 am
Richard, have you read the latest hysterical garbage from salon? Amanda Marcotte really takes the cake this time-far and away, she’s the most odious and over the top rape culture inquisitor I’ve seen thus far. Quite a piece of work. Her hate-fueld, insane assault on skeptics of this story is in dire need of the Bradley treatment… she makes Pressler and practically everyone on jezebel look like top-rate, unbiased reporters.
12/21/2014 11:47 am
This is a blow to Manic Pixie Girl Journalists everywhere! What’s next? Will Anna Merlan’s editor prohibit her from using the f-word?
12/21/2014 3:26 pm
Mike Conrad-
“So they gin up fake stories which describe the world as they wish to believe it, not incidentally supplying easy targets along the way.”
History Repeating
After 30 Years, Phi Psis Still Easy Targets
For Fake Gang Rape Stories
12/21/2014 4:57 pm
Richard, Could you comment on the economics of RS defaming so many people. I’m guessing that there is a deductible on their insurance, and also an exclusionary clause giving the insurer a ‘get out of jail free card’ in the case of negligence on the part of RS. Given that both the legal and fact-checking departments seem to have been MIA; that RS apparently ignored UVA telling it that it told SRE everything that it legally could, and that she was factually wrong; and that SRE attributed things to people she evidently never spoke to, among other things, it’s difficult not to think that RS acted negligently and thus will have to pay any legal awards out of their own pocket. Is it possible or even likely that this might cause RS to be bankrupted? RS and SRE collectively both libeled and slandered a very long list of people and organizations; RS has admitted they screwed up, to put it charitably; and everyone (RS, its editors and fact-checkers, its legal beagles, and SRE) seem to have gone into the Witness Protection Program, seemingly without trying to mitigate the harm they did. RS has a reputation and a status far beyond anything you might expect from a music publication, earned in large part by doing these sensationalistic stories, so there is a certain irony that that very kind of story might be their ultimate undoing.
12/21/2014 5:44 pm
“Richard, have you read the latest hysterical garbage from Salon? Amanda Marcotte really takes the cake this time–far and away, she’s the most odious and over the top rape culture inquisitor I’ve seen thus far. Quite a piece of work.”
Roan, people like Marcotte and outlets like Salon have to exist so they can make people like Hannah Rosin and outlets like Slate appear reasonable by comparison.
12/22/2014 2:18 am
Regarding defamation, etc., above. I reacted to all of this mainly in terms of how many people are being smeared with tawdry and destructive tactics. I’m not a journalist or even a content provider, but I know a smear when I see one. That’s how I reacted to some of the stuff I’ve been reading about Teresa Sullivan and especially Robert Canevari…they’re being vengefully and dishonestly attacked. I hope some old Hoos out there can weigh in with their thoughts. Canevari is simply not the kind of villain he’s being portrayed as…he was always kind and genuinely committed to students, not a heartless bureaucrat serving only the image and public relations, etc. The way Quagliana is being cast…as some kind of corrupt, blame-the-victim rape denier is ludicrous…she is a very humane and dedicated advocate. Also, a LOT smarter than her opponents.
12/22/2014 5:30 am
“She learned another lesson”
I somehow don’t think she’s the learning type….
12/22/2014 7:27 am
@ RCane
I’m merely pointing out that depending on how many of the smeared individuals and organizations choose to sue, for how much, and of course how much they win, RS may not have the financial resources to survive.
And it will be interesting to see if RS tries to divorce themselves from SRE in order to try and minimize their exposure.
For what it’s worth, I’m not a journalist or content provider either, aside from my few postings here.
RS and SRE are the story now - not any particular sexual assault or the reaction to it by any particular university administration, although those might still be valid concerns in other cases.
12/22/2014 10:31 am
Now that Jessica Pressler is returning to New York, I expect her first assignment will be to re-report the story of the Stuyvesant HS financial whiz kid (“Meet the Stuy HS Whiz Kid Who Made $6.75 A DAY During Lunch Break By Trading His Milk Money”).
12/22/2014 2:44 pm
@interestedobserver
Eugene Volokh covered the legal issue regarding libel early in the case and I don’t think recent revelations would change his analysis. The take home is that Rolling Stone has a lot less legal exposure than people have been assuming. Probably the only people that could sue is Phi Psi as an organization. As a group they can only sue for actual damages, not emotional distress. They certainly did suffer real damages (the vandalism, having their events cancelled, etc ) but I would think they would be in the $10,000s range rather than $100,000- million. Possible the guy who some people assume is “Drew” might have grounds for suing also.
12/22/2014 4:54 pm
@Falling faster
Thanks. I missed Eugene’s take, so I will seek it out (I did see his analysis of the concurrent Lena Dunham flap). But if it was early on, it was probably before before Jackie’s friends spoke out about being misrepresented, and I also think the University has been harmed.