Seattlest: Pee-Eye Swallows Porn King Lawyer's Soda

TroyJMorris

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:43:37 -0800

Don, Either point out the inaccuracies, or don't mention them. You don't give yourself any extra credit by acting exactly like the critique said in a public forum. We (the public) aren't that stupid. Honestly, pay a PR person to handle these things. You two are making a mess of it. And it's "Ronald" not "Ron." He signed his letter "Ronald" and chances are an ape could figure out that one should address him in his preferred manner. Seriously, this is a great case study of horrible, shit public relations. Just stop. For the sake of the industry, stop.

TroyJMorris

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:40:44 -0800

Don, Either point them out, or don't. You don't give yourself any extra credit by acting exactly like the critique said in a public forum. We (the public) aren't that stupid. Honestly, pay a PR person to handle these things. You two are making a mess of it. And it's "Ronald" not "Ron." He signed his letter "Ronald" and chances are an ape could figure out that one should address him in his preferred manner. Seriously, this is a great case study of horrible, shit public relations. Just stop. For the sake of the industry, stop.

ronaldholden

Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:06:13 -0800

For what it's worth, here's my exchange with Glenn Drosendahl, the Post-Intelligencer's Reader Representative. Glenn, I think the P-I and its reporter, Andrea James, have been had. http://seattlest.com/2008/08/28/peeeye_swallows_porn_kings_soda_sto.php http://www.cornichon.org/media/peeeye_swallows/ The personal backgrounds of the company owners are relevant because they were well-known locally in their previous endeavors, but there is no mention of their controversial history. The controversy surrounding their product--which would be banned in Europe--is barely mentioned. This story reads like paid advertising. As such, it a grave disservice to your readers. I look forward to your reply, Ronald Holden Belltown Reply from Glenn: Ronald: Thanks for your note. I don't think the P-I was "had." The story arguably would have been stronger if it had some of the background of the company founders posted by you, but that wasn't what it was about. It was about the product. I think there was enough info about Stevia, including the reference to the Center for Science in the Public Interest report, to make readers aware that there was some some disagreement about it and let them know where to learn more. Best regards. Glenn Drosendahl Reader Representative To which I replied: Thanks for your answer, Glenn. Stevia is the one of the most controversial plants, since it's not only poisonous enough to be banned in other countries but is harvested in ways that are ecologically harmful. The story talked about the FDA's inability to do further research because of budget cuts, and about future uses of stevia, The fact that the alarmists at CSPI haven't raised any objections is one thing; but stevia is considered a carcinogen in Europe. The P-I story was a commercial for Zevia, pure and simple. And it's a company run by known swindlers. I stand by my critique. So there it stands. Will advise if there's anything further. Thanks to all the commenters!

TroyJMorris

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:11:05 -0800

And one more thing, never request a review like you did. Don't be defensive. Don't insult the writer (all writers have egos, I should know, I have one too). And just... holy crap, you shot yourself in the foot. This is another reason why you should have professionals handling this and not principles. On another note, nice post Ronald. Good use of hyperlinks to anchor the characterizations and give weight to your article.

TroyJMorris

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:05:18 -0800

Newman- as an ex PR guy. You can get a hold of nearly everyone's email address. Do that before you post a comment on the blog post. It opens you up to a heated rebut from readers. If you do feel the need to have an online presence, do your research and find a candidate who can do it right, re: scoble.

notsosweet

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:10:48 -0800

Uh Oh, Newman is flexing is flabby law-muscle. The "defamatory" statements to which he is referring may not be 100% literally correct, but they do provide a good idea of who the 'cast of characters' are. By way of example (but not limitation), D. Newman and Joel Eisenberg were not 'Pork Kings', but Ian Eisenberg sure as hell was (see http://www.thereisnomoneyinporn.com/story.php?title=Former_Porn_Kings_Owner_Sues_Falcon_Foto). And Eisenberg did not have a judgment against him for $24 million, it was $17.6 million (see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0435428p.pdf). And Eisenberg was never actively involved in online gaming, but he did consider it as a business venture at one-time. But that is really neither here-nor-there. The point being made has to do with Eisenberg's character. Ronald was right,...and what a 'character' he is. I would not worry too much about Newman's assertion any of the aforementioned is 'defamatory'. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it is not defamatory to call it a duck. Get a life Newman!

ronaldholden

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:03:32 -0800

I thanked Mr. Newman for his kind words (and phone call) and pointed out that the post wasn't directed at him or his past deeds but at the credulous hacks at the newspaper. His legal affairs guy, Michael Spain, then phoned to ask if I would clarify the issue of FDA labelling, which I did (in the body of the post, above). Frankly, I think they're digging the hole deeper with every phone call.

RonfromBeaconHill

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:57:37 -0800

Nice work Ronald. It'll be interesting to see if the PI updates their article. I am sure they have seen your post by now. As for Mr. Newman's allegations that you defamed him and possibly his colleagues - I am not sure what to believe. Perhaps you'll respond. And/or perhaps he will sue you.

Charles Redell

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:57:25 -0800

Jesus, a genotoxin, according to wikitionary: Any substance capable of causing damage to cellular DNA and thus producing mutations or cancer. I'd love to know why using that in a soda is a good idea as well.

Kim Ruehl

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:56:21 -0800

"sweetish"??? speaking as someone with a nearly unquenchable sweet tooth, i have to say stevia is way too sweet for even me. isn't it like a thousand times sweeter than sugar (why you use a single drop of the liquid stuff for every tablespoon of sugar)? yuck! i did it for a little while until i couldn't deal with the aftertaste. now, i opt for xylitol. i can't imagine how disgusting a soda sweetened with stevia would be.

jseattle

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:42:25 -0800

Nice work, Ronald. You committed journalism here.

bilco

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:26:38 -0800

So let me get this straight - your wife was hooked on diet sodas, and couldn't quit. Now she's hooked on Zevia. Congrats, that must make a big difference. Could you comment on the use of a substance that results in what the EU considers a genotoxin? From the European Scientific Commission on Food: The Committee reiterates its earlier opinion that the substance is not acceptable as a sweetener

dereknewman

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:18:05 -0800

Ronald, You write a unique and compelling food blog, and I would be pleased if you would review Zevia, Nature’s Answer to Diet Soda. I’m happy to send you samples. Zevia is the first 100% natural, calorie free, diet soda alternative. It contains nothing artificial, and only pure ingredients. My wife, and many similarly situated to her, could not kick the diet soda habit before Zevia. There were natural sodas (but they were full of calories), and there were diet sodas (but they contained harmful artificial ingredients like aspartame). We started Zevia because people needed a tasty carbonated refreshment without calories or negative ingredients. We are very proud of what we created, and we are making a positive impact on the lives of thousands of former diet soda addicts. I think your post is unfortunate. First, it contains several false and defamatory statements. By way of example (but not limitation), none of your “cast of characters” was a porn king, there was never an order to pay $24mm to redress consumers, and nobody involved in this company was ever involved in offshore gaming. There is no “trick”, and we are not prohibited from listing ingredients. Indeed, we list all ingredients and disclose facts that the FDA does not require (such as the amount of caffeine in the cola, and milligrams of stevia). We are fully transparent about what’s in the can and where it came from. What’s most disconcerting is that your piece serves only to create salacious propaganda. You could do a legitimate review of the product. The client I represented a dozen years ago is not germane to this company or to my personal values. Your writing about impertinent history may attract some readers, but it does not help your credibility or the quality of your (usually excellent) food and restaurant reviews. Please send me your address and I will send you Zevia; or, you can pick it up at QFC, PCC, or Metropolitan Market. Hopefully, you will be objective, taste it, enjoy it, and write a story about the product, which is great. -Derek Newman Principal, Zevia LLC dnewman@zevia.com