From: Donna Laframboise <donna@razberry.com>
To: AT POST ME <dlaframboise@nationalpost.com>
Subject: Fw:
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 21:30:12 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From:[For reasons noted elsewhere, sender's name here deleted]
To: "'Donna Laframboise'" <donna@razberry.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 9:32 AM
Subject: RE:
[That Ms. Malenfant's being upset was the reason for the reporter's concern over delays is clearly implied by her forwarding the e-mail at bottom to the five editors it addresses. (But as noted earlier, instead of just forwarding it, she went out of her way to delete revealing words--from this source that she assured them is so "reliable".)] [Next]
Donna, your direct and implied complaints about not seeing your story in
print yet are becoming irritating. No one here is dithering; we are awaiting
a slot, which is the normal way things work on newspapers. There has been
exceptional pressure on space with the series on Ritalin and Christie's
Heikamp finale. Your story is currently slotted for Review this Saturday.
> ----------
> From: Donna Laframboise
> Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2001 12:21
> To: kwhyte@nationalpost.com;
hgurdon@nationalpost.com;
>
pwaldie@nationalpost.com; mnewland@nationalpost.com;
> mzivitz@nationalpost.com
> Subject: Alberta fathers' group story DELAY
>
> Louise Malenfant, the whistleblower on this story & someone who has
> repeatedly given the Post reliable news tips, writes:
>
> From: Louise[ SMTP:MALENFANT@POWERSURFR.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 9:09:32 PM
>
> Dear Donna,
>
> I don't mind telling you that I certainly regret bringing this story
> forward; it feels like I have been left out to dry while the Post dithers
> about publishing the next piece. Meanwhile, there are only bits and
> pieces of the story out... [Omitted here: a partial sentence saying Edmonton media were
unwilling to publicise her claims. This information might have sent the editors
some strong danger signals, so a motive is clear.]
>
> What horrifies me most of all is that the emails I am getting are still
> defending the position that it is ok to have these views about sex in
> childhood and operate as a leader in the family rights movement. I had no
> idea I was associating with people who think this way, but it is coming
> from right across the country. I'm the bad guy, and the whole story isn't
> even out there... [The next hyperlink, to the original e-mail from which this embedded e-mail was taken, reveals the three sentences here that the reporter removed before forwarding that e-mail to her editors:] [Next]
>
> Christensen has sent out yet another press release,
his fourth,
> disparaging your journalistic integrity and implying that he will be suing
> me as well, though I certainly haven't received anything formal in that
> regard. If he wasn't an egomaniac before, he must surely feel good that
> he has found the power to intimidate the press from covering his
> activities in the movement...[the words 'and his shitty little book' omitted, plus one more
sentence.]
>
> In any event, this has been the most unpleasant media experience I have
> ever had... [Omitted here: one sentence repeating that local media are unwilling to publicise Malenfant's claims against me.]
> This story may just end my days as a family advocate, because I
> have now made enemies across the country over my half assed reported
> stance...[The
reporter omitted these words at this point: 'and feel very debilitated by the
idea that no one is concerned that men who view sex with kids as a good thing are running the movement',
together with two short concluding sentences. To see the original email from
which this embedded one was taken:] [Next]
> Louise
>
>