(THREAD) On February 11, CJR published a piece on me by Lyz Lenz ( @LyzL). It had been informed in writing months earlier—before Lenz began her work—that Lenz felt malice toward me. I requested a different interviewer. The request was ignored. This is the story of what came next.

1/ I tell this story not just because it's shocking, but for three other reasons. Columbia University wishes for me to itemize my complaints with the piece—having already declared it will make no changes to it—and I see no reason why I should do so privately rather than publicly.

2/ Second, what happened to me at the hands of CJR—defamation—has happened to many other independent journalists at the hands of other media outlets. Right now there is a needless war between Old Media and New Media, and Old Media is fighting dirty. It has to stop, and right now.

3/ Third—and this is impossible to explain fully if you've never had a major-media hit-piece about you filled almost exclusively with provable lies go viral—it's traumatic and scary and one of the worst things to happen in the life of those it happens to. Folks need to know this.

4/ The bulk of this thread hereafter will be screenshots of my response to the Office of the General Counsel at Columbia University. I apologize in advance that the text will be small. You will need to (a) read it on a desktop computer, and (b) click on the image to enlarge it.

5/ If you want to know what really lies behind the hit-pieces you see in major media that convince you to unfollow someone or never again respect them, please read this thread. You will understand that these publications are lying to you about their standards and their practices.

6/ Those who want to know my personal and professional background—which includes being a journalism professor, a lawyer, and someone who's been in journalism as a practitioner for 27 years—can read my bio below to get a better sense of my view/experience. http://www.sethabramson.net/bio 

7/ Before we get to the screenshots, I want to close this part of the thread by saying that this thread will cost this feed thousands of subscribers. That's how it works. I'm willing to pay the price for telling the truth about a hit-piece many in major media gleefully retweeted.

8/ Now to the letter:

9/

10/

11/

12/

13/

14/

15/

16/

17/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#1)

18/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#2)

19/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#3)

20/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#4)

21/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#5)

22/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#6)

23/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#7)

24/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#8)

25/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#9)

26/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#10)

27/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#11)

28/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#12)

29/ (Intermission): Malicious Misstatement/Proof of Malice by Columbia University (#1)*

*I note in my email to the Columbia OGC several signs of malice in Lenz's article that are not themselves instances of defamation, but rather go toward motive, state of mind, and intent.

30/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#13)

31/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#14)

31/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#15)

32/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#16)

33/ (Intermission): Malicious Misstatement/Proof of Malice by Columbia University (#2)*

*I note in my email to the Columbia OGC several signs of malice in Lenz's article that are not themselves instances of defamation, but rather go toward motive, state of mind, and intent.

34/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#17)

This is the Shia LaBeouf part. It's long. So long that it's been divided into two screenshots. See the next screenshot for the conclusion of the LaBeouf story.

34/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#17, Part 2)

35/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#18)

36/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#19)

37/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#20)

(Yes, I realize that a couple tweets in this thread have the same starting numbers. Things happen in threading. We soldier on toward the end.)

38/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#21)

39/ (Intermission): Malicious Misstatement/Proof of Malice by Columbia University (#3)*

*I note in my email to the Columbia OGC several signs of malice in Lenz's article that are not themselves instances of defamation, but rather go toward motive, state of mind, and intent.

40/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#22)

41/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#23)

42/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#24)

43/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (#25)

44/ Malicious Libel and Defamation by Columbia University (BONUS)

I told Columbia there were 25 instances of defamation; it bizarrely speculated I only had 8. Well, I've already posted 25—but just to show Columbia that I will *always* work harder than their employees, here's 26.

45/ Here's the craziest part, to me at least. All I asked for from CJR was *corrections*. I didn't ask that the piece be taken down, as Lenz inexplicably—and falsely—claimed on Twitter. I wasn't offended by her opinions about me; I have no reason to value them. It was the *lies*.

46/ But what really hurt is that many journalists I respect, and whose work I've honored in curation—with full public citation—leapt to retweet Lenz's obviously sloppy hitjob with the sort of gusto that underscored that the issue wasn't me but what they wrongly think I represent.

47/ Sometime soon, I'm going to post, for PROOF subscribers, my lecture entitled "What Is Journalism?" that I give to my journalism students. What subscribers will hear is a man who cares *deeply* about journalism and has spent untold hours thinking hard about every aspect of it.

48/ I believe journalism is in a state of collapse, and I am *committed* to being part of that collapse being *generative* rather than *destructive*. I have spent my whole life in public service, and my aim in journalism has been to help innovate our way out of a historic crisis.

49/ No one has to doubt my commitment to (or experience in) innovating in digital communications—not only am I the Series Editor of Best American Experimental Writing, but for Christ's sake I'm a tenure-track faculty member *in communications* at an R1 public flagship university.

50/ Even folks like Daniel Dale of CNN—a *fact-checker*, for crying out loud—leapt on Lenz's sloppy mess of an article out of some benighted sense that they're defending journalism. There's rather more evidence that their *mindset*—if not always their work—is actually killing it.

CONCLUSION/ I care public service and care about truth. And yes, I'm obsessive and meticulous as well as deeply sensitive and passionately committed to the causes I believe in. I let people take advantage of me—often. But I did this thread because sometimes you *must* fight back.

NOTE/ There are, of course, a few typos in some of these paragraphs. They will be fixed before this is sent to Columbia.

UPDATE/ I just wanted to assure everyone that—as promised—I fixed any typos before it went off to Columbia. So if you see a typo in any of the screenshots, pretend it's not there! Because by the time these words got to Columbia, it wasn't.

Thanks so much to everyone for reading!