Anatomy of a New York Times Article

This was the article that was published in
todays NY Times Business Section

First, the headline.

“Mark Cuban Is Mad (Again). But Why?”

I didnt know i was mad about anything. I guess if the NY Times says I am, I must be. But rather than me guessing
how they got from interview to headline and article, I will just let the interview speak for itself.

Here you go!

Mark,

I’m writing at the suggestion of Robert Hart. I’m a business reporter and columnist for The New York Times. (Alex
Berenson is one of my best friends.) I’m working on a column for this Sunday about the controversy surrounding the
sale of register.com. Specifically, I’m looking at whether investors like you should be as upset as you seem to be
about the sale.

Robert said that you typically like to do interviews by email rather than phone. So, below are a couple of
questions I’m hoping you may answer.

(Answer as many or as little you like in any order.)

1) Clearly the sale price of register.com was lower than you and many other investors – some who may
have followed your lead into the stock – believed the company would be sold for. Why did you expect it to be
sold for so much more?

2) Are you surprised the Yahoos and Googles of the world never bid?

3) If you think it’s such an undervalued business, why didn’t you make a bid yourself?

4) Do you think the auction was somehow rigged?

5) I’m told Barington’s final bid – which will come out in the proxy shortly – is a couple
of cents lower than Vector’s final bid. Do you think Barington’s motives are the same as yours? Some critics have
contended that Barrington is trying to takeover the company on the cheap through the proxy contest. What do you
make of that?

That’s about it. Of course, if there’s anything else you want to tell me, please do. If it’s at all possible
to get back to me today, I’d be terribly grateful.

Thanks so much.

Best,

Andrew

From: mark cuban [mailto:mark.cuban@dallasmavs.com]

Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:07 PM

To: sorkin@nytimes.com

Cc: mark@hd.net

Subject: Re: nytimes interview re: register.com

>

> I’m writing at the suggestion of Robert Hart. I’m a business reporter

> and columnist for The New York Times. (Alex Berenson is one of my best

> friends.)

Im sorry🙂

> I’m working on a column for this Sunday about the controversy

> surrounding the sale of register.com. Specifically, I’m looking at

> whether investors like you should be as upset as you seem to be about the sale.

>

> Robert said that you typically like to do interviews by email rather

> than phone. So, below are a couple of questions I’m hoping you may answer.

> (Answer as many or as little you like in any order.)

>

> 1) Clearly the sale price of register.com was lower than you and many

> other investors – some who may have followed your lead into the

> stock – believed the company would be sold for. Why did you expect it

> to be sold for so much more?

Its worth much more. A simple analysis to compare it to comparable companies show the expenses clearly out of
whack.

>

> 2) Are you surprised the Yahoos and Googles of the world never bid?

Not at all. Its not their business. Register.com has a legacy business to build on and cash flow to return to
investors if it gets its expenses in line. Thats not the type of business they go after.

>

> 3) If you think it’s such an undervalued business, why didn’t you make

> a bid yourself?

Im not in a position to run the company. My goal was to work with the new board that would have been voted in
during the next shareholder meeting in a couple weeks to help the company

>

> 4) Do you think the auction was somehow rigged?

Rigged ? I dont know if it was rigged, but i think the board definitely incented themselves to sell the
company. There is so little board and management ownership( the only board member with substantial ownership
filed a proxy leaning against the deal ) that their greatest reward came from change of control bonuses they gave
themselves. Plus I think much of the board just wants out.

Thats not conducive for doing whats best for the company.

>

> 5) I’m told Barington’s final bid – which will come out in the proxy

> shortly – is a couple of cents lower than Vector’s final bid. Do you

> think Barington’s motives are the same as yours? Some critics have

> contended that Barrington is trying to takeover the company on the

> cheap through the proxy contest. What do you make of that?

If its lower than Vectors, I would vote against his bid as well

>

> That’s about it. Of course, if there’s anything else you want to tell

> me, please do. If it’s at all possible to get back to me today, I’d

> be terribly grateful.

>

> Thanks so much.

>

> Best,

> Andrew

>

>

>

thanks for being so responsive, mark.

three quick follow ups:

1) Assuming you can get the deal voted down, what do you want the company to do going forward?

2) From what I know about you, you’re a big believer that the market I usually right. In this case, you believe
register is undervalued. Why doesn’t the market? Why do you suspect no one else has shown up with a better offer?
Who did you think was going to want to acquire this asset?

3) Compared to your other investment experiences, how does this situation compare?

thanks again for all of your help.

best,

andrew

From: Andrew Ross Sorkin [mailto:sorkin@nytimes.com]

Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 6:06 PM

To: mark cuban

Subject: RE: nytimes interview re: register.com

thanks for being so responsive, mark.

three quick follow ups:

1) Assuming you can get the deal voted down, what do you want the company to do going forward?

Hold a shareholders meeting so we can either vote in the proposed slate, or propose a new slate.

2) From what I know about you, you’re a big believer that the market I usually right. In this case, you believe
register is undervalued. Why doesn’t the market? Why do you suspect no one else has shown up with a better offer?
Who did you think was going to want to acquire this asset?

Actually I rarely think the market is right. I believe non dividend stocks aren’t much more than baseball cards.
They are worth what you can convince someone to pay for it.

Valuing stocks can be a marketing effort as it is with most stocks, or in some cases, the companies are positioned
to generate profits, cash and return that cash to shareholders. Register.com has been profitable and cash
flow positive in spite of the problems I mentioned. That’s what makes it attractive to me.

I don’t think wall street likes stocks that would benefit from shareholder activism. It likes stocks it can market
to the next buyer.

3) Compared to your other investment experiences, how does this situation compare?

Very analogous. I take my biggest positions in stocks that are complementary to other things I am doing. LGF and
HDNet and Landmark. Register.com and is complementary, with netidentity.com, redswoosh.net,TuCows and
Icerocket.com

Rentrak (Rent) and Charter

Companies I have various levels of equity or debt investments in. Being a large shareholder can allow me to develop
relationships with management and help with business relationships and value creation in both directions.

thanks again for all of your help.

best,

andrew

Mark,

Thanks so much again for your responses. The column will appear on Sunday. So you know it’s coming, you should know
the column concludes that you and Barington may not be on the right side of this little skirmish. I’ve done a lot
of reporting around the auction process and the company’s valaution and I’m a bit skeptical that there’s a lot more
value in register.com in the near term.

While I’m sure you won’t love the piece, I hope you’ll think it’s at least a somewhat thoughtful look at the
issue. And as a guy who’s pretty outspoken yourself, I hope you can respect soemone on the other side of the issue.
Notwithsatnding my view on this specific subject, I have an enormous amount of respect for you.

Thanks again.

Best,

Andrew

From:mark cuban [mark.cuban@dallasmavs.com]

Cant disagree on barrington

And rarely is the best way to get value out of a company that has been poorly run through an auction process.
That’s typically the worst possible way to get value.

Like I said, the market is usually the last to recognize value.

m

So, there you have the email chain.

From all the above, it somehow got put together as this
article.

I responded to what I hoped would be an interesting discussion about the merits of a company based on a referral
from someone I respected, from a newspaper I respected.

Instead, the article was more a personal attack than a representation of our email exchange. Furthermore, even after
the above exchange, the author preferred to quote the press release saying why I wouldn’t vote for the deal rather
than our email exchange.

Live and learn.

UPDATE:

Just read the rest of the NYTimes business section and couldn’t but help notice the irony of this
article: Corporate Law Class: First what
not to do

The first day of class in Law School, the prof showed our HDNet
Film
s
documentary, Enron – The Smartest Guys in the Room, which
I co-executive produced. It was used as an example of what not to do.

To quote the professor – “The whole idea was to get them thinking about professional responsibility and professional
ethics immediately.”

88 thoughts on “Anatomy of a New York Times Article

  1. Here\’s more dirt on Sorkin:

    http://www.wallstrip.com/theshow/2007/10/22/10-22-07-blackberry-beef/

    Comment by Leroy Brown -

  2. I went through your email exchange carefully to check the quotes in the article. And the other people posting comments on here are right. Those quotes attributed to you are not even close. They’re sensationalized and manipulated and piecemealed in there.

    Comment by runescape money -

  3. As I mentioned in my previous comment, I am a former business columnist, so I understand the process here, as well as Mark’s complaints (I interviewed Mark via email in the past for columns on digital music and on weblogs, though I don’t recall if he had a problem with either piece).

    Comment by wow powerleveling -

  4. thank you

    Comment by Learn Forex -

  5. Mark Cuban is not a mad man he’s driven on winning an NBA Championship. He’s worth about $5 Billion dollars and believes he can make anything happen. America is about capitalism and Mark Cuban is just an in-your-face version of it. I don’t think he will win one unless he can get a Dunkadelic Mega-Star in the mold of a Jordan or Kobe Bryant to lead his team. Dirk is a great player but, I don’t believe he has that win or die mentality.

    Comment by Derrick E. Vaughan -

  6. Wow. What a horribly biased article. Interesting.

    Comment by whales -

  7. Please copy and paste this to everywhere you can, and we’ll be on the road to getting the govt. back into the hands of the People. Thank You.

    Comment by Rick A Hyatt -

  8. Please copy and paste this to everyplace you can think of and we’ll be on the road to getting the government back into the hands of the People. Thank You.

    Comment by Rick A Hyatt -

  9. Connecting the dots: The real fire behind the smokescreens of the seemingly unrelated major scandals in DC.

    What do the following have in common?
    – “CIA Operative abuse”/Supposed “Leak” case, Rove, Libby, Frist, Delay, VP, Abromoff, several other yet “Unnamed”
    – CIA Director Bush, Presidents Bush
    – 1979/1995/2001 Executive Orders permitting NSA “Surveillance” (And much more) of American Citizens connected to “Espionage” and/or “Terrorism”
    – 1978 Origin of the FISA Court authorizing “Surveillance” of “Foreign espionage” but a recent resignation of one Judge
    – The special powers of the Patriot Act of 2001
    – Dick Cheney’s long government career under various Presidents
    – The forgotten case of Chandra and Condit since 2001
    – Me
    Answer is that a trumped-up Security Breach was written about me in 1978 just after I left enlisted service in 1977. I moved to Maui in 1978. I moved to Wyoming in 1995. I was forced into governmentally-funded training for cross-country truck-driving employment as part of a trumped up BTK-style “Investigation” in 2001.
    I was sent, especially, to the Coleman factory in Wichita, KS, to be “ID’d.”
    Gary Condit was exposed in 2001, and connected to Cheney. Cheney has been very powerful, in various offices, under various Presidents, the whole time. I knew him as an “Agent” of the “Office Of Economic Opportunity” in the mid-70’s, a CIA front overseas. GHW Bush was Director of the CIA in 1977.
    The above news stories are just “Smoke screens,” that everyone can tell make no sense on the surface. What “Abuse of a secret operative?” Unless it’s really me…
    Yet, it’s no mistake that Intel Chairman Frist& buddies want to keep everything “Highly Classified” and secret. It’s no mistake that Condit, Abromoff and certain others were on these Intel Committees, and they’re part of the current meltdowns in Congress, the Judicary and the Executive.
    All of this, and why? I witnessed Gary Condit and his wife dispose of the dismembered remains of a “Political Sexual Embarrassment” and was sworn to secrecy in 1977 while in US Army Military Intelligence. Yet basically framed for it and others.
    My life has been containerized, to put it mildly, since, though the above Executive, Judicial and Legislative means. It’s helped to ID a lot of corruption, let alone espionage.
    Simply put, this “Service” that Condit offered to the high-ranking got him into Congress, an espionage goal, but lost him all support in 2001 after his face got on the front pages.
    Then we had a war we didn’t otherwise need, but at least 9/11 DID NOT put Cheney in as President Dictator. He’s been muzzled since and that attempted Coup D’Edat and desired effects neutralized.
    The behind-the-scenes investigations into the above have erupted in the last few years, along with Dennis Rader’s confession. Thereby proving that I could not be said kind of serial killer and interest as to how, by whom, and why I could have been framed for such to begin with.
    More details can be had on http://www.bloglines/blog/public/RickAHyatt and http://www.rickhyatt.freeservers.com – If the NSA will let you through… Or even read this.
    Please help me make this public, lest it gets covered-up. Thank You.

    Comment by Rick A Hyatt -

  10. Connecting the dots: The real fire behind the smokescreens of the seemingly unrelated major scandals in DC.

    What do the following have in common?
    – “CIA Operative abuse”/Supposed “Leak” case, Rove, Libby, Frist, Delay, VP, Abromoff, several other yet “Unnamed”
    – CIA Director Bush, Presidents Bush
    – 1979/1995/2001 Executive Orders permitting NSA “Surveillance” (And much more) of American Citizens connected to “Espionage” and/or “Terrorism”
    – 1978 Origin of the FISA Court authorizing “Surveillance” of “Foreign espionage” but a recent resignation of one Judge
    – The special powers of the Patriot Act of 2001
    – Dick Cheney’s long government career under various Presidents
    – The forgotten case of Chandra and Condit since 2001
    – Me
    Answer is that a trumped-up Security Breach was written about me in 1978 just after I left enlisted service in 1977. I moved to Maui in 1978. I moved to Wyoming in 1995. I was forced into governmentally-funded training for cross-country truck-driving employment as part of a trumped up BTK-style “Investigation” in 2001.
    I was sent, especially, to the Coleman factory in Wichita, KS, to be “ID’d.”
    Gary Condit was exposed in 2001, and connected to Cheney. Cheney has been very powerful, in various offices, under various Presidents, the whole time. I knew him as an “Agent” of the “Office Of Economic Opportunity” in the mid-70’s, a CIA front overseas. GHW Bush was Director of the CIA in 1977.
    The above news stories are just “Smoke screens,” that everyone can tell make no sense on the surface. What “Abuse of a secret operative?” Unless it’s really me…
    Yet, it’s no mistake that Intel Chairman Frist& buddies want to keep everything “Highly Classified” and secret. It’s no mistake that Condit, Abromoff and certain others were on these Intel Committees, and they’re part of the current meltdowns in Congress, the Judicary and the Executive.
    All of this, and why? I witnessed Gary Condit and his wife dispose of the dismembered remains of a “Political Sexual Embarrassment” and was sworn to secrecy in 1977 while in US Army Military Intelligence. Yet basically framed for it and others.
    My life has been containerized, to put it mildly, since, though the above Executive, Judicial and Legislative means. It’s helped to ID a lot of corruption, let alone espionage.
    Simply put, this “Service” that Condit offered to the high-ranking got him into Congress, an espionage goal, but lost him all support in 2001 after his face got on the front pages.
    Then we had a war we didn’t otherwise need, but at least 9/11 DID NOT put Cheney in as President Dictator. He’s been muzzled since and that attempted Coup D’Edat and desired effects neutralized.
    The behind-the-scenes investigations into the above have erupted in the last few years, along with Dennis Rader’s confession. Thereby proving that I could not be said kind of serial killer and interest as to how, by whom, and why I could have been framed for such to begin with.
    More details can be had on http://www.bloglines/blog/public/RickAHyatt and http://www.rickhyatt.freeservers.com – If the NSA will let you through… Or even read this.
    Please help me make this public, lest it gets covered-up. Thank You.

    Comment by Rick A Hyatt -

  11. Mark – Way to keep him at least slightly accountable by posting the emails! It seems like the NYT competitors would love to get ahold of this stuff😉

    Comment by Wyatt K -

  12. Its all very confusing.

    Comment by Luke -

  13. That is hilarious. Has Sorkin followed up with you on this? BTW what is all that from Salah El-Menouar in the comments? It took me awhile to figure out if it was a Nigerian scam, or a sincere attempt at discussion…

    Comment by Eric -

  14. Also, the NY Times’ credibility is completely shot, IMO.

    In general I don’t trust the media to tell the truth. They only print stuff that’ll promote their cause, which is readership. And conflict sells. Angst sells. Fear sells. (Not to mention blood.)

    I don’t read the NY Times anymore (used to be the only media I read). When I do read the occassional article, its with a pound of salt; not a grain, a pound.

    Comment by Jonathan -

  15. I agree with you about the market being the last to know. The “market” are sheep waiting for direction from the shepard.

    Comment by Jonathan -

  16. Salah El-Menouar
    97, cité Md Boudiaf
    46100, El-Maleh
    W Ain-Temouchent
    ALGERIA
    TĂ©l : 213 43 65 63 74
    Mobile : 213 72 14 33 90
    E mail : salahelmeno…@yahoo.fr
    energyvitoree…@yahoo.fr
    salahelmeno…@hotmail.com
    energyvitoree…@hotmail.com

    http://360.yahoo.com/salahelmenouar [ MEDICAL PATENT AND
    APPLICATIONS ]

    http://360.yahoo.com/energyvitoreelle [ STRATEGIC DETECTION AND
    LOCALISATION]

    Despite the risks that I incur with the body of my family; I am anxious

    to inform the scientific world as all
    those that can ask themselves questions on the subject of our works; WE

    INVITE THEM ALL SIMPLY HAS TO COME HAS
    TITLE OF GUESTS AT OUR PLACE TO SEE, NOTE DIRRECTEMENT A REALITE
    CONCERNING A DECOUVERTE IN MATIERE OF
    DETECTION PERMETANT TO HAVE PICTURES PHOTOS AND RECONSTRUCTIONS OF
    WHICH PLACE OF THE EARTH WITH LOCATION
    POSSIBILITES AND MANY OTHER POSSIBILITES REALISABLES, DEMONTRABLES AND
    REPRODUCTIBLES HAS OUR LEVEL AND AT THE
    LEVEL OF ANY LABORATORY, INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITE; THAT WELL HEARD IN A
    CONTEXT GUARANTEEING US OUR RIGHTS
    CONCERNING THE DECOUVERTES, WORKS, RESULTATS OBTENUS,BREVETS DEPOSES
    AND THOSE OF WHICH WE DETENONS THE
    POSSIBILITE OF DEPOT WHEN THE CONDITIONS WILL BE REUNIS…

    WHEN HAS TO BELIEVE OR NOT TO BELIEVE; WE ARE IN A POSITION TO PROVE IT

    EXPERIMENTALEMENT WITH RESULTATS A LOT
    MORE SPECIFIQUES AND DETAILLES IN BEING AND BEING ABLE RAISES MORE BIG
    SECRET…

    ALSO WE DEPLORONS THE DIFFERENTES ATTACK AND THE AS CERTAIN
    NON-RESPECTS do NOT STOP POLARIZING TOWARDS WE OF
    MANIA IRREFLECHIT, SEE IRRESPONSIBLE…

    WE; WE CAN PROVE REELLEMENT NOT ENONCE OF THE THESES OR
    SUPPOSITIONS,VOIR OF THE THEORIES NON-VERIFIABLES.

    NEVERTHELESS WE ARE PRET HAS TO WORK WITH THOSE THAT WILL JUDGE THE
    SCIENTIFIC interet AND THE PROFITABLE
    PROVISION OF WHICH POURAIT IN BENEFICIER ALL THE humanite AND TO WHICH
    ONE THE BODY OF THE SCIENTIFIC
    COMMUNITY THERE COULD CONTRIBUTE FOR THE BETTER CULMINATION.

    ALONE THE CONJUGATION OF THE EFFORTS OF ALL EAST THE ALONE WAY FOR
    REUSSIR AND KNOW TO PULL THE BETTER one OF
    ONESELF MEME FOR L’ENSEMBLE. ..

    IMPORTANT: it is necessary that scientific everyone and all person
    concerned by the placement in practices
    techniques, of process and of means of investigations medicales
    permetant to put under cover the man of all
    risk or nuisance to his person and the natural environment; all while
    being effective, operationnel and
    beneficial to the humanite by the proprietes

    Investigatives that they obtain with an amelioration of the quality
    life.

    Thus invite us the scientific communautée and all déléguation

    Institutional to come at our place to note by them memes them done
    reels that we enonçons and of which relate us some aspects and
    resultats through our small site web
    http://360.yahoo.com/salahelmenouar.

    All while confirming that we are in a position to prove and to show at

    the level of any scientific laboratory, Institute or University of
    leaves the world not
    only the reality of the facts and this well sure in the fitting, legal
    conditions and required between we by our traveaux and through the
    entites compétantes that can we representer in protection
    matiere and of legality of procedure. We all also convinced as
    conscious as the development of

    Similar results and works cannot be done that by the concour of the
    body of the scientific communautée or each there will see an approach,

    a work, an application and a development more
    appropriates and effective of which alone a combines compétances will
    be able some to give the better results and the most various ones…
    WE INFORM YOU THAT EVEN HAS THIS DAY HAVE US TO WORK
    ALL DID ALONE ON THIS PROJECT AND THIS SINCE 1991, DATES HAS WHICH HAD
    US THE FIRST PREMICES THAT HAVE US ENCOURRAGE HAS TO FOLLOW THE
    RESEARCHES ALL IN DEVELOPPANT OF OTHER APPLICATIONS
    NON-MEDICALES THAT ALLOWED US DECOUVRIR AGAIN CENTERS OF SCIENTIFIC
    interets DECOULANT DIRRECTEMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL DECOUVERTE “THE ENERGY

    VITOREELLE” AND THE PLACEMENT The equilibre state OF
    THE UNIVERSAL FORCES. SINCE A DELUGE OF INFORMATION AND OF
    APPLICATIONS WE APPEARED OF WHICH WE CERTAIN POSSEDONS RESULTATS
    DEPASSANT OUR PERSONAL MEANS HAS ALL THE

    JUST AS WELL HUMAN LEVELS AS MATERIEL.

    WE INVITE A SECOND TIMES THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY TO COME TO NOTE AND
    RULE ON THE REALITE OF THE FACTS.

    DEAR PROFESSORS AND DOCTORS

    After a reshearsh work , we release a scientifiques discoverys wich i
    prouve it by démonstrations and laboratory experiences what i can
    release and prouve it at any moments
    The experiences prouve the real existence of GLOBAL CODITIONS OF REAL
    LIFE FORCES STABITLITY , and prouve existance of al ENERGY LIFE with a
    specifics propietys ; this proprietys can be exploited and developped
    with a lotof differents process …
    I have developped some process for exemple in IMAGIN MEDICAL
    INVESTIGATIONS , in RECONSTITUTIONS -MODELISATIONS ; in
    AUTO-DETECTION OF LESIONS and many others possibilitys and
    medicals applications …
    One of my developpement is an experimental imagin medical
    investigation system machine ,i invent and registred in the
    I.N.A.P.I of ALGERIA with collabotion of Mister Haroun (advocate

    and legal expert)
    The name of this machine is I.L.P. ( LOGIQ-PARAREEL-IMAGIN-SYSTEM)
    WE can obtain with system
    1/ An medicals images with :
    a : surgical tape ( we can explore with it all human
    body)
    b : sthetoscope (cardiac and pulmonary explorations for this

    moments…)
    c : voice and sound .( crane and brain )
    d : OTHERS…
    2/ We can’t use any emissions
    3/ Never use products , isotopes, injections or any protocols …..

    4/ The patient always in the most confortable situations of exams and

    …………
    5/ The image contains a differents and all informations of the exams
    region …
    6/ The time of exams never more than 2 at 5 minute for the
    patient.
    7/ The autodetection of lesions can provide an veritable opportunity
    in a medical diagnostic .
    8/ The imagin medical system investigation of I.L.P can provide
    many others possibiltys like the C.G.L.P.( Cardiogramme logique
    parareel) the C.G.L.P provide a differentes cardiacs
    histogrammes with simillar informations of E.C.G but contains
    more informations and juste use an surgical tape or
    sthetoscope.

    Many others capacitys , possibilitys , applications, exists now
    and can developped and exists in futer …

    Comment by SALAH EL MENOUAR -

  17. Salah El-Menouar
    97, cité Md Boudiaf
    46100, El-Maleh
    W Ain-Temouchent
    ALGERIA
    TĂ©l : 213 43 65 63 74
    Mobile : 213 72 14 33 90
    E mail : salahelmeno…@yahoo.fr
    energyvitoree…@yahoo.fr
    salahelmeno…@hotmail.com
    energyvitoree…@hotmail.com

    http://360.yahoo.com/salahelmenouar [ MEDICAL PATENT AND
    APPLICATIONS ]

    http://360.yahoo.com/energyvitoreelle [ STRATEGIC DETECTION AND
    LOCALISATION]

    Despite the risks that I incur with the body of my family; I am anxious

    to inform the scientific world as all
    those that can ask themselves questions on the subject of our works; WE

    INVITE THEM ALL SIMPLY HAS TO COME HAS
    TITLE OF GUESTS AT OUR PLACE TO SEE, NOTE DIRRECTEMENT A REALITE
    CONCERNING A DECOUVERTE IN MATIERE OF
    DETECTION PERMETANT TO HAVE PICTURES PHOTOS AND RECONSTRUCTIONS OF
    WHICH PLACE OF THE EARTH WITH LOCATION
    POSSIBILITES AND MANY OTHER POSSIBILITES REALISABLES, DEMONTRABLES AND
    REPRODUCTIBLES HAS OUR LEVEL AND AT THE
    LEVEL OF ANY LABORATORY, INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITE; THAT WELL HEARD IN A
    CONTEXT GUARANTEEING US OUR RIGHTS
    CONCERNING THE DECOUVERTES, WORKS, RESULTATS OBTENUS,BREVETS DEPOSES
    AND THOSE OF WHICH WE DETENONS THE
    POSSIBILITE OF DEPOT WHEN THE CONDITIONS WILL BE REUNIS…

    WHEN HAS TO BELIEVE OR NOT TO BELIEVE; WE ARE IN A POSITION TO PROVE IT

    EXPERIMENTALEMENT WITH RESULTATS A LOT
    MORE SPECIFIQUES AND DETAILLES IN BEING AND BEING ABLE RAISES MORE BIG
    SECRET…

    ALSO WE DEPLORONS THE DIFFERENTES ATTACK AND THE AS CERTAIN
    NON-RESPECTS do NOT STOP POLARIZING TOWARDS WE OF
    MANIA IRREFLECHIT, SEE IRRESPONSIBLE…

    WE; WE CAN PROVE REELLEMENT NOT ENONCE OF THE THESES OR
    SUPPOSITIONS,VOIR OF THE THEORIES NON-VERIFIABLES.

    NEVERTHELESS WE ARE PRET HAS TO WORK WITH THOSE THAT WILL JUDGE THE
    SCIENTIFIC interet AND THE PROFITABLE
    PROVISION OF WHICH POURAIT IN BENEFICIER ALL THE humanite AND TO WHICH
    ONE THE BODY OF THE SCIENTIFIC
    COMMUNITY THERE COULD CONTRIBUTE FOR THE BETTER CULMINATION.

    ALONE THE CONJUGATION OF THE EFFORTS OF ALL EAST THE ALONE WAY FOR
    REUSSIR AND KNOW TO PULL THE BETTER one OF
    ONESELF MEME FOR L’ENSEMBLE. ..

    IMPORTANT: it is necessary that scientific everyone and all person
    concerned by the placement in practices
    techniques, of process and of means of investigations medicales
    permetant to put under cover the man of all
    risk or nuisance to his person and the natural environment; all while
    being effective, operationnel and
    beneficial to the humanite by the proprietes

    Investigatives that they obtain with an amelioration of the quality
    life.

    Thus invite us the scientific communautée and all déléguation

    Institutional to come at our place to note by them memes them done
    reels that we enonçons and of which relate us some aspects and
    resultats through our small site web
    http://360.yahoo.com/salahelmenouar.

    All while confirming that we are in a position to prove and to show at

    the level of any scientific laboratory, Institute or University of
    leaves the world not
    only the reality of the facts and this well sure in the fitting, legal
    conditions and required between we by our traveaux and through the
    entites compétantes that can we representer in protection
    matiere and of legality of procedure. We all also convinced as
    conscious as the development of

    Similar results and works cannot be done that by the concour of the
    body of the scientific communautée or each there will see an approach,

    a work, an application and a development more
    appropriates and effective of which alone a combines compétances will
    be able some to give the better results and the most various ones…
    WE INFORM YOU THAT EVEN HAS THIS DAY HAVE US TO WORK
    ALL DID ALONE ON THIS PROJECT AND THIS SINCE 1991, DATES HAS WHICH HAD
    US THE FIRST PREMICES THAT HAVE US ENCOURRAGE HAS TO FOLLOW THE
    RESEARCHES ALL IN DEVELOPPANT OF OTHER APPLICATIONS
    NON-MEDICALES THAT ALLOWED US DECOUVRIR AGAIN CENTERS OF SCIENTIFIC
    interets DECOULANT DIRRECTEMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL DECOUVERTE “THE ENERGY

    VITOREELLE” AND THE PLACEMENT The equilibre state OF
    THE UNIVERSAL FORCES. SINCE A DELUGE OF INFORMATION AND OF
    APPLICATIONS WE APPEARED OF WHICH WE CERTAIN POSSEDONS RESULTATS
    DEPASSANT OUR PERSONAL MEANS HAS ALL THE

    JUST AS WELL HUMAN LEVELS AS MATERIEL.

    WE INVITE A SECOND TIMES THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY TO COME TO NOTE AND
    RULE ON THE REALITE OF THE FACTS.

    DEAR PROFESSORS AND DOCTORS

    After a reshearsh work , we release a scientifiques discoverys wich i
    prouve it by démonstrations and laboratory experiences what i can
    release and prouve it at any moments
    The experiences prouve the real existence of GLOBAL CODITIONS OF REAL
    LIFE FORCES STABITLITY , and prouve existance of al ENERGY LIFE with a
    specifics propietys ; this proprietys can be exploited and developped
    with a lotof differents process …
    I have developped some process for exemple in IMAGIN MEDICAL
    INVESTIGATIONS , in RECONSTITUTIONS -MODELISATIONS ; in
    AUTO-DETECTION OF LESIONS and many others possibilitys and
    medicals applications …
    One of my developpement is an experimental imagin medical
    investigation system machine ,i invent and registred in the
    I.N.A.P.I of ALGERIA with collabotion of Mister Haroun (advocate

    and legal expert)
    The name of this machine is I.L.P. ( LOGIQ-PARAREEL-IMAGIN-SYSTEM)
    WE can obtain with system
    1/ An medicals images with :
    a : surgical tape ( we can explore with it all human
    body)
    b : sthetoscope (cardiac and pulmonary explorations for this

    moments…)
    c : voice and sound .( crane and brain )
    d : OTHERS…
    2/ We can’t use any emissions
    3/ Never use products , isotopes, injections or any protocols …..

    4/ The patient always in the most confortable situations of exams and

    …………
    5/ The image contains a differents and all informations of the exams
    region …
    6/ The time of exams never more than 2 at 5 minute for the
    patient.
    7/ The autodetection of lesions can provide an veritable opportunity
    in a medical diagnostic .
    8/ The imagin medical system investigation of I.L.P can provide
    many others possibiltys like the C.G.L.P.( Cardiogramme logique
    parareel) the C.G.L.P provide a differentes cardiacs
    histogrammes with simillar informations of E.C.G but contains
    more informations and juste use an surgical tape or
    sthetoscope.

    Many others capacitys , possibilitys , applications, exists now
    and can developped and exists in futer …

    Comment by SALAH EL MENOUAR -

  18. I am less appaled at the article as I am the questions he sent you. These are becoming the typical types of questions asked to rile or lead a subject into saying something specific to fit an angle. Glad you were able to kay it all out. I never liked the NYT anyway.

    Comment by Stacey Cochran -

  19. Well, Mark…just goes to show that, even with emoticons, some of us get caught up in other’s issues and projections and can’t win. No matter what you explain to them, the hole just gets deeper because they’re just piling on their own stuff…oy! A lack of a sense of humor and an ability to read subtlety are often hallmarks of those will poles place where they shouldn’t be. I’ve always found email to be the easiest way to get misconstrued and that a well-managed telephone call and a smooth voice can get one a heck of alot more. Sorkin should’ve been less passive-aggressive and called you to calrify.

    But, then again, when somebody’s got “issues,” the last thing they’re going to think of is talking to someone…

    (oh, I found this thru an Icerocket search on your buddy Blake Rhodes…who emailed me the other day…and *that* was an interesting little surprise…)

    Comment by Tish G -

  20. Your personal relationship notwithstanding, You seem to forget what the NYTIMES is in business to do – SELL NEWSPAPERS. And you have to admit that headline would sell more papers than one that says Mark Cuban agrees. KDubbs

    Comment by KDubbs -

  21. Isn’t it great to have a well read blog where you can present your side of the story uneditied? Someday, perhaps all public figures will have their own forums like Mark does and be able to correct what the media messes up when they ‘quote’ them

    Comment by trace -

  22. I would imagine he is buying TCX because they seem to be significantly undervalued if you compare it with RCOM.

    Comment by Dave -

  23. Mark,

    Do you have time to comment on your TCX/RCOM combo investmnet. I’ve read that you plan to push a merger of thw two. Is there any validity to this?

    Why exactly are you buying so much TCX?

    Comment by Patrick Jones -

  24. Mark I think you’re smart for only doing interviews through email so everything is always in writing.

    Comment by randy ratio -

  25. Mark I think you’re smart for only doing interviews through email so everything is always in writing.

    Comment by randy ratio -

  26. As a journalism grad and PR consultant, I train a lot of execs on how to deal with the media. I also train them on what to expect i.e. reporters are full of the same bias, misinformation and misconceptions as anyone else in the public. I throw around things like “reporters don’t report the truth; they report what people say” and “the story doesn’t have to be complete, just finished by deadline” and think how wonderfully insightful I am as the folks in the room nod knowingly at my trite PR BS. Never have I seen such a textbook case of this stuff laid out for all to see….it even makes me believe my own spin-doctoring self-important mumbo jumbo.

    This is a great example of another media trick of the trade — the “i am your buddy” routine.

    Mark did a great job with his responses, but the reporter already had his story written and just needed some quotes to fit his angle. Too bad that he got outed here. But it really shows you how things work in the media.

    Sorkin’s conclusion that Mark Cuban was going to benefit the most by trying to get a better price just shows how yellow this reporter is. In three separate e-mails to Mark, he didn’t ask him once to react, comment on or defend his position on that point. Horrible ethics.

    Thanks for posting this Mark…my clients will benefit from seeing how no matter how on-message you are, the media can still take a shot at you. We’re even thinking about creating our own blog to out reporters who do the same thing to our clients.

    Comment by David Jones -

  27. Wow – and it has happened again! Making up quotes for Condi Rice.

    http://jpundit.typepad.com/jci/2005/08/condoleezza_ric.html

    “It shows that the purported quote — made the centerpiece of the Times story — was constructed by the Times from two separate, unrelated comments by Rice — one taken out of context, the other not even accurately quoted.”

    Comment by Michael Hussey -

  28. The dirty secret of journalism is that most articles written and news reports aired are full of careless inaccuracies (not even getting to the notion of reporters purposefully distorting things). The problem is that typically very few people would realize the mistake (usually the people involved in the story), and the news organizations could not care less about correcting the mistakes.

    Of course, they shouldn’t have tried this with Mark …

    Way to go.

    Comment by Ken Zon -

  29. Looks like this is a theme…

    “A Colorado State University professor who quit a Bush admission science advisory team researching the causes of global warming said his reasons for leaving the committee were “mischaracterized” in an article published Tuesday in the New York Times.”

    http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050825/NEWS01/508250319/1002

    Comment by Michael Hussey -

  30. Perhaps it is because I have the benifit of hindsight, but anytime someone comes to you for an interview, and takes the pains this man took it explaining he has mutual friends, and is just following protocol, you shoul dbe, at best, skeptical.

    That being said, the Times’ business section is going to do a lot better putting your name and screaming face on an article than regester.com’s.

    Comment by Joshua -

  31. The NYT is a far left organization interested in manipulating facts and making people it disagrees with look bad. Doesn’t anyone remember the 53 front page Abu Grave stories! They are selective journalists and propagators of their own opinions more so that any other news organizations…which is why their readership is down dramatically.

    Mark, let’s face it: You voted for Bush and they resent you. You are rich and successful and they resent you…nice job putting the info on your website for all to see.

    Comment by TK -

  32. typical left wing goofball journalism, this guy doesn’t even know what a stock is

    Comment by matt brody -

  33. typical left wing goofball journalism, this guy doesn’t even know what a stock is

    Comment by matt brody -

  34. You go Mark!! Thanks for being such a kick butt, keeping it real type of person. That guy needs to get the smackdown put on him. He was so wrong for jacking up the story that way. I mean, you didn’t even have to answer his questions at all. What a waste of your time!! He completely disrespected you by lying, and then sugar coats his true intentions with another lie, “I have an enormous amount of respect for you.” Get real! I agree with everyone else. Thanks for exposing some of these journalists and papers for who/what they truly are. Almost makes a person not want to do anything newsworthy – good or bad, if the media is just going to tell it their way.

    Comment by Saki Milton -

  35. Hi Mark,

    Well it seems that what Mr. Sorkin wrote proves that anybody with at least some type of spell check on their pc can write newspaper articles. I guess the NYT was interviewing for a new business writer and he was the only one who applied. This pathetic attack writing and poorly written articles is why I don’t subscribe to any newspapers ( just read news from the internet) anymore.

    Ah well what can you do, if you don’t offer anymore interviews they’ll say you’ve become a recluse and a hermit.

    I would just keep on doing what your doing because all us normal people know the real you ( at least from your writing on your blog).

    Marco from Ontario, Canada

    Comment by marco -

  36. You still look cute admist all the misquotation so it doesn’t really matter….🙂

    Putting that aside, I’m sometimes slightly disgruntled by what it published. Like you, I used to have lots of respect for it. That was my “prime” source of US news. Not anymore. They just like to dramatize their stories a lot these days…

    Comment by Liessa Chan -

  37. Imagine the NY Times allowing editorial influence into their journalism. What should we expect from the same outfit that brought us 50+ front page stories on Abu Ghraib. They should print op-ed on the top of EVERY page in that paper.

    Comment by Ryan -

  38. I am equally outraged by sorkin’s article. I’m surprised no one emailed Sorkin based on his email address: sorkin@nytimes.com. I did and got an auto response “he was on vacation”. I left a message for his editor and I cc’d the NY Times editor: Bill Keller — keller@nytimes.com

    I hope others can let them know this type of sham reporting is unacceptable.

    Comment by Darren R -

  39. There’s a line from the movie “The Grifters” that I’ve always thought had a lot of relevance to Marky Mark. A conwoman is talking about a scheme she’d had to scam Texas oil men. She explains why it was a good setup thusly: “They made money when everybody was making money. They think that means they’re smart.”

    I didn’t find anything all that objectionable in the column, although it seemed pretty fact-free even for the Times. The guy and the Times might have used Cuban to make slightly more decent copy and sell papers, respectively. Fine. Cuban’s email conversation with the guy was motivated, I’m sure, by a noble and selfless search for truth, right?

    I did find Jo Fletcher’s question an interesting one though.

    Comment by Don Westlake -

  40. Sorkin wrote a “business” article about Mark being mad that had very little business content. Mark wrote in his blog about Sorkin being a bad journalist. Fine. Take sides. Knock each other out. Whatever.

    The real issue is, why does Mark invest in Register.com and choose to use the same service provided by Regsiter.com’s competitor? What would Mark do to make Register.com the service provider of his choice?

    Comment by Jo Fletcher -

  41. The problem here is that this was not an article it was a column. Not a news story, it was his opinion. His opinion was that investors thought the company they invested in was worth more than it was, big shock. A column about Mark Cuban being measured and having a no big deal attitude about a business venture isn’t something someone will actually bother reading. Papers are under tremendous pressure to make things entertaining, salicous, etc. The writer didn’t really burn Cuban, he wasn’t misquoted or whatever. The statements in the release sound angry. But my first editor always said not to SAY how people feel but say how they feel they feel. Get it? He should have asked Mark if he was angry about the sale, upset, dismayed, dissappointed,etc.

    Comment by Chris -

  42. Ben – thanks very much. I didn’t know about the press release. And I overlooked Mark’s comment about it in the blog entry itself.

    So OK – thank you again.

    Comment by Garrett -

  43. In response to Garrett (comment #45), the quotes Sorkin used in the article that did not come from the email exchange with Mark Cuban were pulled directly from a press release issue by Mark Cuban on August 10, 2005. The release can be found here: http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050810005499&newsLang=en

    If you read the release, the email exchange that Mark has posted, and the article, you’ll find that every direct quote attributed to Mark in the article was either said in the email exchange or in the press release. I do not see any evidence that Mark was misquoted.

    The “problem,” if we can call it that, is that Sorkin did not attribute the press release as his source for some of Mark’s comments. This, however, is a moot point, because Mark made these comments publicly and not to any particular media outlet or group of people (i.e., this was a public statement intended for consumption by all media outlets and all persons), so no attribution of the forum for the comments is really necessary. More so, Sorkin later notes that Cuban commented to him in “an e-mail message,” leading the reader to conclude that Cuban was in direct contact with the writer. You can take this either way: That all of the comments attributed to Mark were via email, or just the comments following the notation of an “e-mail message.”

    As I mentioned in my previous comment, I am a former business columnist, so I understand the process here, as well as Mark’s complaints (I interviewed Mark via email in the past for columns on digital music and on weblogs, though I don’t recall if he had a problem with either piece).

    Again, I think the problem here is the characterization of Mark being mad, angry, upset, etc. and the fact that the column was framed around this characterization. Likewise, as someone who covers this topic and these companies, I’m just surprised that this was the angle the writer chose to take.

    On the flipside, as a columnist, you have the right to choose your topics and your point of view, and Sorkin made it clear that he feels Mark and others are “sore losers” in this battle. I don’t have a problem with that either. If Mark is upset that Sorkin relied more on the press release than on the interview, than perhaps the press release wasn’t the best course of action. As it stands, the press release contains the “juicier” comments, and thus I’d probably defer to it as well if I was writing about the subject.

    In the end, I don’t have a problem with Sorkin’s article. I understand why Mark is upset, but as someone who deals the media on a regular basis, I assume he clearly understands the difference between a news report and a column or a piece of opinion. I don’t see the article as a personal attack (yes, that’s easy for ME to say), mostly because Mark is a public figure operating in the business arena (isn’t it good that the media questions the actions and motives of large shareholders in public companies?).

    Sometimes it’s all about the constraints of space and time, and sometimes it’s about the point a particular article or author is trying to make. I think both things apply here.

    That’s my two cents.

    Comment by Ben Silverman -

  44. Ben Silverman (comment #38 above) is reacting the same way I did initially. I read your email exchange then the NY Times article. The article was a reasonable enough read and while it seemed to reach a conclusion unfavorable to yours, at first I didn’t see what was so objectionable about it.

    But then I went through your email exchange carefully to check the quotes in the article. And the other people posting comments on here are right. Those quotes attributed to you are not even close. They’re sensationalized and manipulated and piecemealed in there.

    It makes for better reading, frankly, than the email exchange. But that’s the point, isn’t it? The guy made up quotes by you that helped the tone of what he wanted to report about and put them in the New York Times.

    Incredible. Ben Silverman — if you haven’t already done so, take the time to go through that exercise of cross-checking the quotes and please report back your thoughts. If you have taken the time, please explain to me how it’s “much of a problem” to just make up quotes and attribute them to the subject of an interview. Especially an interview by email where there can’t be any question what the subject actually said.

    Cheers.

    Comment by Garrett -

  45. Note to self: Whenever possible, conduct media interviews via email. Way to stick it to him!

    Comment by Jeff Jordan -

  46. I am so surprised that they would attack you. NO WAY, not the leftist communist republic of the Times in the cradle of the leftist capital of the world. Mark, what the hell are you smokin dude? I gotta get me some! He, he. Despite this lapse in judgement, I still like you a lot more than Trump.
    ——————————
    Better Delivery from Superior Code.
    NEW Email Delivery Algorithm.
    http://www.activsoftware.com/xms/

    Comment by Rob Thrasher -

  47. Here’s the amazing thing.

    When people see a newspaper writer’s inaccurate report, the twists, the omissions, the unfair characterizations, etc., they say, “Oh man, can you believe that?”

    Then the next day they read every other article in every other publication, listen to radio and watch TV, under the apparent belief that that one article was like that, but most ‘news’ is not like that.

    There is almost nothing in newspapers, or on radio and TV, that are not exactly like that.

    Comment by James E. Powell -

  48. It seems to me you were “phished” for a juicy tidbit that did not pan out. You gave him nothing that would 1) enhance his rep as an investigatory journalist or 2) sell papers. You honesty and measured response paid off in that there was nothing he could use from that exchange. It is sad that this is what passes for journalism but that has been true since Watergate made Woodward and Bernstien. Just remember this is the newspaper that brought you Jason Blair. He must have been re-hired as the ethicist

    Comment by Bill -

  49. That is what I like about nowadays technology. You can show others the real true. In this case, unfortunately, you could not reach the same amount of people that read the article but at least people can see your side 100%. Also, I understand why you like interviews by email but also I see it has some cons. The reader could interpret something diferent or just read what he wants to read because there is not a tone in your writing that give him that you really don’t care about it, or just it is not fare as a investor point of view.

    I got nothing similar of what he wrote reading the emails and I glad you are able to publish the whole conversation…

    One thing, please ask him to tell you his concept of “I respect you” as he wrote, because I don’t think he respect you after reading the article.

    Good for you Mark! Go Mavs

    Ivan

    Comment by Ivan -

  50. I ahve done many interviews and rarely do reporters get it right. Sort of like those can, do. Those who can’t, …

    Comment by midosm.com -

  51. As a former business columnist, I don’t see much of a problem with Andrew Ross Sorkin’s column other than the fact that it characterizes Mark Cuban as “mad” (ok, the headline writer did that), “upset” and having “outrage.” Then again, poetic license is a journalist’s best friend.

    I do, however, have some complaints about the piece, including the fact that Sorkin didn’t disclose that Cuban’s cost basis on RCOM is about $7.005 per share, good for about an 11% gain at Vector’s takeover price (a “sore loser”?). Likewise, the James Mitarotonda angle is more interesting and it would have been nice if the writer had explained that RCOM is sitting on $4+ per share in cash and is selling for about 1X 2005 revenues less that cash.

    Anyway, this is all moot in my book. What’s more interesting is the 8.9% stake in Tucows (TCX) that Cuban just disclosed. Care to comment on that Mark?

    Comment by Ben Silverman -

  52. Hey Mark:

    Another excellent exploration and explanation of your world. How freaking great would it be if everybody in your position would take the time to really detail what happens in situations like this? These journalists believe they can get away with slanting the truth because they’ll never get called on it.

    Except when you write about the NBA (sorry, dude, I couldn’t care less – but don’t take that personal), your stuff is some of the best blog writing out there.

    Comment by Cap'n Ken -

  53. I appreciate you including your email exchange with the reporter from the New York Times. He was obviously planning an attack on you and emailed you hoping to strike a nerve and get you to lose your cool.

    The media wonders why nobody trusts them anymore!?! This is why. What a stupid move asking for your help with his story and then bashing you. Eliminates one source for future articles he writes I am sure.

    Thank You.
    Sean

    Comment by Sean McEnany -

  54. Nice spelling (for a reporter).

    Comment by Rick -

  55. To follow up on #30… Why does it seem that the problem with Register.com is that it doesn’t have a few hot chicks in skimpy outfits pimping it on TV? Registering domain names isn’t rocket science. It’s all a marketing play. And a pretty cheap one at that, even with a Super Bowl ad or two.

    Comment by Brad Hutchings -

  56. Does Sorkin have season ticks at the Garden? He barks like a bitter Knicks fan.

    Comment by Bryan Sharp -

  57. Blogmaverick.com and Icerocket.com are both registered through GoDaddy.com. So really, what is the point of Register.com? Fair question?

    Comment by Zeph Nayak -

  58. And you would think that by agreeing to do interviews by email only, would prevent problems like this. You would think, “how can they twist things when everything is in writing.”

    Comment by Roland -

  59. While the skeptics think that you are trying to cash out on your investment after the auction, Sorkin is out to get you for sure. But tell us, what is the value of Register.com? I used it for one year. Its services were outrageously useless and expensive. What are some concrete actions that you would like Register.com to take to make itself useful and valuable?

    Comment by Zeph Nayak -

  60. This is what happens when you have a) non-business people writing business articles and b) when that non-business writer is looking for spin at the expense of a celebrity. What a joke! Why didn’t this guy think that he has obligation to get the facts correct and write a balanced story. I see the same type of coverage in the pharmaceutical industry, another “celebrity” which can’t seem to do any good if you only read the newspapers.

    If you wonder why newspaper readership is down, look to articles (and writers) like this for an exemplar reason.

    Thanks, Mr. Cuban for posting the TRUTH.

    Comment by Carlos -

  61. Mark, what do you expect from the New York Times? I’ve lost respect for them a long time ago, and this doesn’t just have to do with the rise in blogging. They have been wrong many times before, and the journalistic integrity that they used to be the paragon of, is lost. Seeing the exchange back and forth, and the final article published is like what a movie advertiser would do. Take quotes out of context to get a desired effect.

    Although, what is different now than what was different in the past is the fact that you were able to share this information, immediately, through a blog format, usupring the ultimate power that they have in this instance. While typically the reader would have to wait several days for a response by you to be published, we have seen it now, and without the interference of the writer or the editors of that rag.

    Comment by T Man -

  62. This is just another classic example of why journalists should not be writing about business for any newspaper or magazine. It should be a business-degreed writer who writes such articles. Only they have something worth reading, and even that is subject to scrutiny, insult, degradation and ignorance. What a shmuck that Andrew Sorkin.

    Comment by Nate -

  63. I think there are quite a lot of people, such as myself, who appreciate your insight and above all, love your openness and honesty.

    That being said, before you talk to anyone from the media, you should have them sign an agreement which gives you the right to approve the article before it gets published. Said agreement should include a provision for liquidated damages.

    Btw, absolutely love reading your blog. Out of all the information I ingest everyday (and that is quite a bit), your blog is by far the most important to me.

    Comment by Marg White -

  64. In response to Chump Mitchell who posted earlier (23), you have missed the point completely. Many of the comments attributed to Mark Cuban were fictitious. They were published in a major newspaper. Irrespective of your personal feelings, pure and simple; that’s not just incredibly irresponsible, it’s just plain wrong.

    Comment by Derek A. G. Jones -

  65. As a German journalist I have to add one thing: E-Mail-Interviews with people you haven’t met are a problem. By reading a mail you can’t judge the feelings of a person, often you overread irony, you can’t react imediatly to certain vibrations in the voice.
    As a public person, being asked for an interview, it’s always better to make a phone interview, if a journalist wants more than a fact confirmation.

    Comment by tknuewer -

  66. I’ve been burned by the Gray Lady once before, as well…In 2003, there was a blasphemous article published on the front page of the tech section comparing one of my sites, RateMyTeachers.com, to a website that encouraged high school students to post sexual rumors about each other anonymously. The reporter never contacted me and the article was riddled with errors and dirty implications. The intention of the story was clearly to incite a lawsuit against my site. Within a few weeks, the NY State teachers union had filed for an injunction against RateMyTeachers — thankfully, the request was turned down.

    The article was disgustingly irresponsible. So, to hear of stories like yours, Mark, is hardly surprising. Thanks for sharing…

    Comment by Michael Hussey -

  67. Can you really expect anything better from NY Times. This just solidifies the feelings I’ve had for them already.

    Comment by Taylor Martyn -

  68. Hi Mark,

    I’ve been subscribing to blogmarverick.com for a while. I think it’s amazing you have shown how the blogging can be effective, dynamic, and interesting vs. the mainstream counterpart.

    Comment by Kenji Mori (Japanese) -

  69. HEY … check this out Mark … so I read your entry Sunday morning and clicked thru on the NYT article, fully expected to get the “Registrated Required” screen … so I was surprised when that didn’t happen.

    So I happen to circle back Sunday evening to re-read it again … and when I click on it, I DO get the “Registration Required” screen.

    I.e. my guess is the article was “open” to the public this morning, but was put behind the wall later in the day. Maybe co-incidental that this was done after your blog entry – any chance you could get a comment from the NYT on that possibility? 😉

    Comment by alek -

  70. Wow. That was a stunning read and juxtaposition. Plus, he wrote that you “said” this and that, when he should have noted it was an email interview. I wonder if he followed NY Times style on that?

    Comment by Chris -

  71. Here’s my response to the editors of the NY Times:

    “I can hardly type from laughing. By posting a copy of e-mail correspondence between himself and Times reporter Andrew Sorkin on his weblog (www.BlogMaverick.Com), Cuban exposes Sorkin as an ass and a fraud. In the absence of any quotes from Cuban to support Sorkin’s pre-determined viewpoint for a story on the sale of Register.Com, Sorkin takes the liberty of completely fabricating quotes from Cuban.

    Apparently, Sorkin was absent on the day that integrity and credibility was taught in journalism school. Amazingly, Sorkin was even brazen enough to inform Cuban that he wouldn’t like the article. How could Cuban like the article? Sorkin blasted Cuban through enough ficticious quotes and imaginary opinions that would make Jayson Blair blush.

    The editors of the Times need to immediately take a stand to eridicate such shoddy, self-serving journalism before the credibility of the paper continues to erode before the American public.”

    Comment by Z Harwell -

  72. I love this. Blogging has officially reached a new level.

    We, the non-journalists of the world, used to fear what journalists might write or say about us, because it was so difficult to correct their misrepresentions.

    But it looks like those days are history, wouldn’t you say? =)

    How is this guy gonna respond to Mark’s complaint? I’m really curious. It’s not like he can challenge a direct “cut n paste” quote. So what does he say?

    “Yo, I’m a journalist! I gotta spice it up a little bit. Cut me some slack, bro!”

    Great stuff.

    Comment by Charles -

  73. No Spin Zone? by Jim Parham

    What (truly) motivates financial reporters to write about the companies they mention in their articles….?

    Andrew Ross Sorkin’s past agendas….?

    Clue #1….

    http://excite.brand.edgar-online.com/PeopleFilingResults.aspx?PersonID=3382313

    Comment by Jim Parham -

  74. Once again, I’m embarrassed by my own profession.

    Comment by Ken Carpenter -

  75. Mark –

    Classic exchange: Inexperienced, naive and prejudiced reporter (who does not have any direct financial experience whatsoever) meets the complex reality of finance…and labels it “Greed.”

    Like others said, it’s no wonder the NYT is struggling. Having lost the ability to publish insightful prose…it now publishes name calling. My forecast: it will soon begin lobbying for a government-sponsored bailout of its operations…citing the public’s need for “unbaised” reporting…

    Here’s the question an experiened business reporter would have asked: why would a billionaire like Mark Cuban waste his time (and put his money at risk) to force improvements at Register.com? And why are so many hedge funds following him…?

    What are the real problems at the company…and why haven’t they been addressed…?

    Comment by Porter Stansberry -

  76. Puts me in the mind of an old Margaret Cho chestnut: “I am not mad. I AM NOT MAD! If I was mad, you would be dead!”

    Comment by e jerry powell -

  77. -After the first paragraph you could already tell it was going to be a negative article
    -Will ANDREW ROSS SORKIN be able to get any more decent interviews with key biz people in the future? However hes going to keep publishing the same crap regardless of getting interviews. I guess if you do give him some facts straight out like Mark C has, then you can at least show how much slime Andrew S. is.
    -This confirms why I dont read newspapers. The contra costa times is pretty much crap, but the silicon valley times and mercury are ok. but still not worth reading everyday.

    Comment by Rob Poitras -

  78. Mark, thanks for the lesson. From now on all my “conversations” wiith information seekers will be via email. I will also be setting up a blog so that I can set the record straight if ever necessary. This guy should be totally embarrassed.

    Comment by Derek A. G. Jones -

  79. I thought you sold Broadcast.com and not Broadcasting.com? You would think that the reporter would have gotten even the most basic information down before running the story. He loses all his credibility when he can’t even get past the second paragraph before he blunders. What a jerk!

    Comment by Jason A Nelson -

  80. Wow! Why did he bother sending you an email? Its not like he even listened to what you wrote. Nor did he know anything about you before sending the message. Saying things like, “From what I know about you, you’re a big believer that the market I (is) usually right.” If he had read any of your recent posts regarding the market he would have quickly realized that was an idiotic statement.

    It interesting, he took the opposite opinion of yours but offered no reasoning to back it up other than saying no one wanted to buy it for more. Your stance wasn’t that it was worth more. Rather it would be worth more if the board were doing their job by fixing internal expense issues. If I’m about to sell my house I fix it up before I try to get top dollar for it.

    I also like how he posed this question in the article, “Did Mr. Cuban want to help the company or help himself?” Why didn’t he have the respect to ask you that directly in his emails?

    Thanks for reminding readers that this is commonplace in today’s media. I’m glad our Constitution protects their freedom. I’m disappointed the media is abusing this freedom.

    The irony is, they write this way to attract readers, but this type of journalism is the reason I don’t subscribe.

    Thanks Mark!

    PS – Good direction with the team this year. I like the new philosophy. You realized the market changed and you adjusted accordingly. I’m worried it may have taken one season too long. The contracts for Daniels and Dampier were a little over-valued last year. No one was going to offer Daniels anywhere near that much and Dampier was ready to leave Golden State for much less.

    Comment by Aaron -

  81. Maybe the answer to how this happened is simple:

    Maybe the reporter is uneducated as to what Mark Cuban really stands for. Maybe he has no imagination, maybe he’s not very good or maybe his effort was extremely poor.

    These guys have thresholds, just like the rest of us. Maybe he exceeded his capacity for material that was on target and had to do a story without using his brain.

    It happens all the time. Just read more newspapers and you’ll see just how bad they really are.

    Comment by Mike Sigers -

  82. The media loves a story about people who are angry and upset. This is especially the case if the person is famous already. The management of Register.com is not famous so their names or pictures do not sell newspapers and that is what the Times is all about. If the facts get in the way of the story that’s too bad I guess. Good luck with Register.com. It sounds like they need a management that is interested in the shareholders as much as in themselves.

    Comment by Alfred Thompson -

  83. Very disappointing and extremely common is the fact that the media twists statements and create quotes that were not said. This has been a common occurrence for my business which did it’s first media interviews in May of this year.

    Comment by Scott -

  84. Typical news “journalist” work … on slow news days there’s little reason why they can’t just create a story. This is the very reason why so many of us are turning to less traditional forums for news and information. The NYT is yet another media source with no future.

    Comment by Jeff Davis -

  85. wow. what a horribly biased article. interesting. thanks for posting the email exchange. too bad i can’t figure out how to send feedback to sorkin/the editors at the times.

    Comment by shane -

  86. Great writeup Mark – I find these type of exchanges interesting – how the story ends up getting twisted is incredible – I had a first hand experience with my Christmas Lights hoax – see http://www.komar.org/xmas/hoax/media.html – but you’d think they do better with business writing.

    Your “I’m sorry” response to the “Alex Berenson is one of my best friends” name drop was hilareous – is there more to this?

    BTW, is a reporter ever NOT on deadline when they talk to you – I gotta believe this adds to the poor end result.

    P.S. You have a leading “a” in the second “article” link before the http, so that link is broken.

    Comment by alek -

  87. Anybody can have their angle and spin on a story — hell, I think they should. But the sad thing is that it’s not yet de rigueur that the reporter post the exchange as an ancillary document.

    Comment by Mike Orren -

  88. Wow, that guy seemed to have the angle and your role slated before he ever wrote you. I read that article, and thought it sounded like a different guy than the one I’d read on this blog and heard on a podcast.

    Very interesting. Thanks for sharing that e-mail exchange.

    Comment by Busty -

Comments are closed.