Monday, October 29, 2007

Sheldon Adelson's Response

On Sunday, the R-J published this response by Sheldon Adelson to an attack by Review-Journal Editor Thomas Mitchell and the general topic of why he continues to press his libel suit against bankrupted columnist John L. Smith.

Read it here. I'm very curious your reaction. I'll comment on it later, after I hear what y'all think.

9 comments:

Charles Rowland said...

If Mr. Adelson's statement is true that all he wanted was "an apology, a retraction, and $1" to make the problem go away, then Mr. Smith was mistaken not to take it.

Pride goith (sp?) before the fall.

dan kane said...

But didn't Smith offer the apology and a retraction in his newspaper column, even though the error didn't even occur there? And didn't they insert an errata in the book?

Walter said...

Adelson says he wanted $1, retraction, and an apology. John Smith, I believe, claims he wanted $12 million. For the casual observer, it's impossible to know which is true without digging through court filings to find out.

I can understand Smith's refusal of the $200k. If Adelson was really interested in helping his daughter, he could have always donated the $ anonomously or through a charity. It was a calcualted move to soften his image in the press (IMO).

Joseph, New London said...

Actually, both are correct in a sense, Walter. He's suing for $75 million or somesuch but he's willing to drop the thing for $1. Except that clearly, that's a lie because he has already gotten his apology and retractions.

JC said...

Adelson's piece doesn't make sense. First, as noted above, he says all he wanted was an apology and a retraction. Smith has already given both! So Smith should now have the leverage to write the $1 check and have the lawsuit dropped.

Also, Adelson clearly doesn't understand libel/defamation law. He says that his fame and fortune should place him in no different position under the law. This is clearly wrong, as noted by the RJ. Perhaps if he understood the law, and that Smith has apologized publicly already, he could be a man and let this whole thing go away. But apparently he prefers to keep it in the public eye, for a reason that I cannot fathom.

Anonymous said...

I think it's interesting that none of the intelligent points made here on the blog have been posted on the LVRJ's website under Adelson's propaganda editorial. (Did he really write it? Then maybe Adelson should be a writer, because I almost believed him.)

Adelson says he just wants an apology and a correction. Smith says he apologized and corrected. So... what's the point of contention now, other than Sheldon Adelson's bruised ego?

I always kinda liked Adelson's bulldog vitriol, especially when it was aimed at one of his fellow spoiled rich dudes (Steve Wynn). Now that it's more like pit bull viciousness aimed at a poor little writer, I'm seriously boycotting Adelson properties. I can't control much, but I can control where my money goes. Petulant, vicious, spoiled rich boys with entitlement issues like Sheldon Adelson do not need my money.

Unreal.

Just... unreal. Can't believe I used up brain cells on this topic today. One hopes that Adelson will grow up and stop behaving like such a brat. His behavior now is a great deal more damaging to his "reputation" than any errors printed in Smith's book.

Bernadette in australia said...

This comment is made on the basis that all I know about this issue is what I've heard on The Strip and by reading Adelson's article. I know nothing about the American legal system.

I think Adelson wanted more than he said he wanted. He really wanted a bit more than a simple retraction - he wanted some kind of "dear God I'm really really really sorry to have made such horrible mistakes...I don't know how you could possibly forgive me but if you could find it in your heart to do so I would be eternally grateful" public thing from the journalist and he didn't get that so he sued. He wanted an opportunity to be seen as being being benevolent and forgiving and he really didn't get that from what I've heard/read. That's what the offering of money and specialist access was all about and the journalist rebuffed that offer too. I understand why he did that but in doing so he cut off Adelson's opportunities for real restitution - he was looking for the journalist to give him an opportunity to look good to redress the damage done by the journalist and the journalist didn't give him what he wanted. The journalist had every right to do what he did (rejecting Adelson's offer of assistance for his daughter) but that decision had consequences and he could probably have predicted those consequences if he thought about it for a few minutes.

Do I blame Adelson for suing? Not really. He's entitled to feel aggrieved. I would if someone made numerous major factual errors about my life in a very public way. Personally I wouldn't have handled it the way Adelson has done. I would have written my response (as Adelson has done) and allowed the public (and my children and the charities I contribute to) to make up their own minds about the whole thing. I also would have considered whether or not suing would enhance my reputation or damage it further and I wouldn't have let sleeping dogs lie. But that doesn't mean I think Adelson is wrong for taking a different approach than I would have done.

Is the journalist entirely blameless? No. I understand that he was in a horrible situation with respect to his daughter but bad personal circumstances don't negate your public responsibilities. I think the journalist was let down by his publishers or whoever it is in the publishing process that has a fact checking role to play. Or are books like that routinely published without any third party checking of any sort?(that's a genuine question I've never been involved in that kind of publishing).

Anonymous said...

It is unreal. Unpaid sub contractors on the Venetain that made the state of Nevada change the law, Suing the Las Vegas Sun and Jeff Simpson, John L Smith. Isn't he suing someone about something with the Cotai Strip? Didn't his attemp to seal the info lead to some other action being opened? If he just kept walking, most of this would be forgotten. He does, however make rational adults post ananymously for fear of his reach.

Anonymous said...

Here's the progression of my knowledge of Sheldon Adelson:

1. He's the guy who owns the Venetian.
2. He's the guy who owns the Venetian and he really hates Steve Wynn.
3. He owns the Venetian, he hates Steve Wynn, and he's opening up a place in Macau, so he and Wynn are really going at it.

(Note that Smith's book has been out during all this time. I didn't read the book, nor did I hear anything about the book.)

4. John L. Smith is having to declare bankruptcy because Sheldon Adelson has gone after him! Smith says Adelson had MOB ties! I never heard about that before. I'll have to get that book. It's a shame that such a hot shot felt he had to go after the little writer. Must be some truth to the story.
5. Adelson's work of fiction in the RJ -- and the chorus of "hear, hear!" from his toadies in the comment section -- really clarifies what John L. Smith said about him, why there's a good chance that much of it is true, and how much of a slimeball Adelson really is.

Seems to me the longer Sheldon fights this battle, the worse his reputation gets. One thing I'm sure of is that he's not helping himself with his protestations of "I have to clear my name!"