Thursday, September 3rd, 2009

Who Gotcha? :: The Story Behind The Story Behind The Roxanne Shante Story

By Wayne Marshall and Jeff Chang

If a rapper claims to be a killer, no one cares. If she says she has an education, they send in an investigative reporter, or at least someone who purports to be.

Oh don’t we love gotcha journalism. But who’s really getting got here?

Two weeks ago, the New York Daily News ran a story in which legendary rapper Roxanne Shante says she forced Warner Bros through a contractual clause to pay for her education, earning degrees from Marymount Manhattan College and Cornell University.

Yesterday, lawyer and “pro-copyright” blogger Ben Sheffner published his piece of gotcha journalism, claiming that not only did Warner not have direct contracts with Shante, but that she hadn’t finished her coursework at Marymount Manhattan and never enrolled in Cornell.

Perhaps most annoying to Sheffner was that “the story was endlessly blogged and tweeted, heralded as an example of a heroic triumph by a girl from the projects over her evil record label.”

Commenters around the web have praised the Slate piece as a fine bit of investigative reporting by a disinterested journalist. Here’s our gotcha: he’s not disinterested, and the investigative reporting wasn’t all that investigative.

First, his “disinterest”: his Slate piece contains, at the bottom, what seems like a standard statement of disclosure: “While an attorney in private practice in the early 2000s, he represented numerous AOL Time Warner entities, including several Warner Music Group companies, on issues unrelated to Roxanne Shanté.” Yup, he was defending the “evil record labels,” even then.

And still is. His bio on his blog states that he is an attorney currently employed by NBC Universal, and his job description includes — we presume — looking sometimes at exactly the kind of artist contracts Shante would have signed.

By his own writing, he is not really a disinterested observer. The bio reads:

“Ben Sheffner is a copyright/First Amendment/media/entertainment attorney and former journalist. Ben is currently working as a production attorney in the NBC Universal Television Group. Preiously [sic], he worked as an associate at O’Melveny & Myers LLP, as Senior Counsel, Content Protection Litigation at Fox, and as Litigation Counsel at NBC Universal. From July-November 2008, Ben served as Special Counsel on Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign where, among other responsibilities, he handled the campaign’s copyright, trademark, and other IP issues” (emphasis ours).

Clearly, Sheffner’s interest in this story, which motivated his questionable “investigation,” grows out of his ongoing efforts to protect the interests of his former and current (and future?) employers and, more generally, to advance the pro-copyright, pro-corporate side of the intense public conversation around the present state and future of the music industry.

Sheffner has backed the same interests in his coverage on his blog and for other online outlets, on the two cases involving the RIAA and alleged copyright-infringing filesharers that have, to date, gone to trial. He’s pretty much in the pocket, as they say.

We can imagine him looking at that piece and going, “Aw shit. Now I’m gonna have to give those kiddie actors a college clause — no way!” Then firing up his word-processing program and emailing Slate’s editors.

OK, so Shante didn’t have Warner pay for her education directly — and perhaps we’ll never know if one of the subsidiary labels made such an agreement with her because Pop Art’s contracts were supposedly lost in a flood. Cold Chillin’s file with Warner, according to Sheffner, didn’t have that level of detail. (Makes sense the file might be incomplete — they ended up at odds with each other after the big judgment against Biz Markie over his sampling case.)

Here’s what WB’s counsel wrote to Sheffner: “If Cold Chillin’ guided this artist’s compensation to education expenses that would certainly be a worthy one.” Then Sheffner makes what seems to be his main point right after that: “None of the half-dozen music industry sources contacted by Slate for this article had ever heard of a record label making an open-ended commitment to finance an artist’s education.” Gotcha!

But what of her education? Sheffner makes a big point of alleging Shante did not receive her Ph.D and is not listed as a practicing doctor. Gotcha again! (Sheffner seems to fetishize this “Doctor” thing. Maybe he’s sharpening his knives for Dr. Dre next?) But according to her, Shante has received her BA and MA degrees. Her passionate message in her talks to hip-hop youths across the country is about the importance of education. Clearly much more of the story here is begging to be told.

Most importantly, Shante said she attended college under another assumed name–not even her birth name–because of a domestic violence situation. Sheffner didn’t follow up on, we think, a reasonable, relevant, and obvious lead here. If she was right, he must have known at that point the story might have required real investigative reporting. Yet Slate’s editors didn’t put the brakes on the story even at this point. Instead, the piece ran with Sheffner’s slander that she failed to “substantiate such claims.”

So what did we learn here? One, Warner Brothers didn’t, but perhaps someone in the industry did fund Shante’s education. Two, Shante may not have a Ph.D.

We think that’s all pretty thin for a so-called expose.

Too bad this couldn’t be settled with battle rhymes. We all know who’d win that one.

posted by Jeff Chang @ 11:30 am | 64 Comments

64 Responses to “Who Gotcha? :: The Story Behind The Story Behind The Roxanne Shante Story”

wayneandwax.com » Who Gotcha? says:

September 3, 2009 at 11:44 am

[…] cross-posted to cantstopwontstop […]
giles says:

September 3, 2009 at 11:46 am

there it is!
Wayne Emilien says:

September 3, 2009 at 11:47 am

Thanks for the heads up, Jeff. Its just a sad story all around.
Kenji Jasper says:

September 3, 2009 at 11:58 am

Great response, Jeff. Much appreciated!
hmmmm says:

September 3, 2009 at 1:03 pm

Sorry dude, but obviously the Slate piece wasn’t as thin as you say if in fact two major fallacies (Shante’s unsubstantiated claim of getting that degree and the missing proof that warners paid) were revealed. Provide paper evidence and there’s no “gotcha”
OW says:

September 3, 2009 at 1:50 pm

“So what did we learn here? One, Warner Brothers didn’t, but perhaps in the industry someone did fund Shante’s education. Two, Shante may not have a Ph.D.

We think that’s all pretty thin for a so-called expose.”

With all due respect to my two esteemed colleagues and friends, I actually think these two things are *completely* at the crux of the story.

I’m not trying to crucify Shante here but I can’t see factual inaccuracies of one’s biography as being immaterial. If I reported in a newspaper that “Jeff Chang is a MacArthur Fellow” or “Wayne Marshall has PhD, JD and MBA” I would assume either one of you would seek to correct the record quickly.

I’m also not clear on the point of an extended interrogation of Sheffner’s motivations except to challenge his “disinterested” claim. Regardless of his motivations, it comes down to – did he conduct good journalism or not? If he did not (or if he did), his motivations would seem to me to be rather irrelevant. Either he demonstrated due diligence (which he does to a point, but not beyond that) or not.
Jeff Chang says:

September 3, 2009 at 2:04 pm

Due diligence is the point here. Especially if the domestic violence story is correct, because then it’s possible that he loses the entire story. He did not check that fact–and at that moment he placed the burden back on the subject.

Our point is that the domestic violence story becomes crucial. There is an unequal relationship at work here. The writer will not have to face the personal consequences that Shante may have to face upon disclosure. So it’s not as simple as ‘cough up the papers, dude.’

And instead he and his editors at Slate chose to print what amounts to a thin expose. Who really cares if WB paid for her college education or not, except those in the industry? That’s why Sheffner’s bio is important to know.

Good journalism is not just about ‘newsworthiness’, it’s also about not running a story until all the facts are in.
Sparky D says:

September 3, 2009 at 2:16 pm

Weather she is a doctor, lawyer, or prinical, she have travel nation to nation speaking life into our children’s lives. I understand you guys may think it’s some disbelief, but what I want you to do, is think back in your life you every mad a mistake, not saying that she did but the BIBLE says: JUDGE NOT.. She have inspiried many women all over the world. Please dont we have better things to do AMERICA. As 13yr old foster child not where to go and no where to run but on stage at a young age she deserves more then this please find it your hearts to up lift her, not to tear here down……. The one and only HER BEST FRIEND SPARKY D..GOD BLESS YOU ALL..
Roderick Allan says:

September 3, 2009 at 2:18 pm

Ben Sheffner didnt do his so called research to the fullest. When Shante said the reason for not using her real name while attending college he stopped the research at that moment and put the story out anyway as a gotcha. Now who are you Mr Sheffner to try to bring someone down because their answer doesn’t satisfy you. Why didnt you find the name she used if you are so into telling the truth.Sounds like SLANDER TO ME STAY UP SHANTE LOVE YOU
Ben says:

September 3, 2009 at 2:31 pm

Hi Jeff,

I’m a fan of your writing, and no particular fan of Ben Sheffner or Big Copyright, but I don’t understand your hostility toward his article.

Why is it a thin expose? It makes a very persuasive case that the NY Daily News published a very seriously flawed article. That’s significant not only because the Daily News is a major newspaper (it has the seventh-largest circulation in the U.S. http://bit.ly/hL3rs) but because the story was picked up, uncritically, by dozens of other publications and websites. She has no PhD. She’s not a doctor. She didn’t graduate from the grad school the article said she graduated from, and there’s no record that she graduated from the college it was reported she graduated from. (She says she graduated from there under a different name, but won’t let a reporter see her diploma. I’m not saying that’s untrue — I don’t know what the facts are — but in those circumstances, would YOU publish as fact that she graduated from Marymount?) The record label contract that serves as the centerpiece of the article appears not to exist — at least, there’s zero real-world evidence that it does exist.

So the Daily News ran a bad piece, and this guy called them on it. What’s the problem? As I see it, in the end, an investigation that made a major newspaper publish the following, highly embarrassing correction, is hard to classify as thin:

Correction: It has come to the attention of the Daily News that a number of statements in this article written for the Daily News by a freelance reporter are, or may be, false. Cornell University has told us that Shante did not receive any degree from it under either her birth or stage name. We have confirmed that prior to the article, at least four publications on Cornell’s own website reported that Shante had earned a Ph.D. from the university. Those references have now been removed. And in response to an inquiry today, Marymount College stated that Shante attended there for less than one semester.

Numerous e-mail and telephone inquiries by the freelance reporter to Marymount during the preparation of the article to confirm Shante’s account were not responded to. Finally, there have been recent media reports that there never was an education clause in Shante’s recording contract. When the reporter contacted Warner Brothers Records about the contract before the article, its only response was that it was having difficulty finding someone within the company who could “talk eloquently” about it.

Regards,
Ben
Roderick Allan says:

September 3, 2009 at 3:05 pm

It must be a serious reason not to disclose the name she used for college”DOMESTIC VIOLENCE”.He didnt follow up on that. So we just take for granted the slate article is 100%? As fast as people build you up some people cant wait to tear you down. I guess we should forget all the good Shante has done and the people she’s touched.I think not. In closing. If you let this SLANDER turn you against her you wasn’t in her corner from the jump.
Who Gotcha? :: The Story Behind The Story Behind The Roxanne Shante Story | Fashion e Music Blog says:

September 3, 2009 at 4:02 pm

[…] View original post here: Who Gotcha? :: The Story Behind The Story Behind The Roxanne Shante Story […]
Matt Diehl says:

September 3, 2009 at 4:04 pm

Hey Jeff,
I interviewed Shante for a “where are they now” piece on old-school hip-hop artists, and she gave me the same rap, so to speak, about her education. I believed her, and she passed RS fact checkers. I thought some of her answers/responses didn’t seem particularly academic considering her education, but I didn’t think too much of it. What I wrote in a comment on The Daily Swarm was thus: “On the other hand, is a rapper pretending to be a degreed psychologist and having a Phd from a university worse (or better) than a rapper pretending to be a crack dealer with a fake diploma from the streets? The semiotics and pathology of this are fascinating…” That said, if she’s bullshitting about having a degree, that’s still wack. She’s receiving fees and getting speaking engagements on the assumption she has a degree, and acting as a psychologist without a degree is dangerous and of course illegal. When I interviewed her, she seemed cool and positive, so I hope she’s got that diploma hanging on the wall and can prove this wrong.
~~~"DJ GERALD"~~~ says:

September 3, 2009 at 4:49 pm

I have to agree 100% with Sparky D posting …
Uplifting and not scrutinizing is what is needed,,,very well spokened & good point takened…(As quoted by Sparky D)…
Weather she is a doctor, lawyer, or prinical, she have travel nation to nation speaking life into our children’s lives. I understand you guys may think it’s some disbelief, but what I want you to do, is think back in your life you every mad a mistake, not saying that she did but the BIBLE says: JUDGE NOT.. She have inspiried many women all over the world. Please dont we have better things to do AMERICA. As 13yr old foster child not where to go and no where to run but on stage at a young age she deserves more then this please find it your hearts to up lift her, not to tear here down…….
kevin says:

September 3, 2009 at 6:07 pm

(first posted to wayneandwax.com but seems like all the action is here!)

The original story was exciting not for Shante’s triumphs over Warner (who REALLY cares?) but because it showed a former child-star pursuing an admirable adult life. How many other few-hit wonders could tell such a story?

Further detail was needed – not to debunk Shante’s claims but to determine if others of her generation could follow that lead! It’s a shame, but not a surprise, that this was not Sheffner’s angle.

Biz’s doing okay on TV and Shante’s gonna survive this but what about everyone else?
Spyder D says:

September 3, 2009 at 7:54 pm

Please don’t under estimate Queens, NY, New York.
dookey says:

September 3, 2009 at 8:28 pm

okay, not to harsh anybody’s mellow, but this piece seems like inverse (or is it reverse?) gotcha journalism. the whole piece is spent taking Sheffner to task for being an evil major label attorney. why not do a follow-up investigative piece proving Shante’s claim to having degrees, thus disproving Sheffner’s piece? While I think we all have more pressing issues (economy, global warming…) to be concerned about, all of this could be quashed with Shante either bringing forth her degrees or another journalist making the calls to the appropriate Universities. if somebody questioned my BA, I’d happily produce the degree and give them my alma matter’s phone # so they could verify that it was real. That’s just my 2 cents.
Thunder X says:

September 4, 2009 at 6:07 am

With all Shante has inspired children to do or become, one of those virtues should have been honesty. Her misrepresentation of her education threatens to undo all she has done, for it will be perceived that if she is lying about one thing, she may well be lying about everything. She also may wel have had a domestic violence issue, but using an assumed name is hardly a deterrent for someone of her celebrity. Eventually someone is bound to recognize her no matter what name she chose to disguise herself under.

I don’t think it’s asking too much of those who clai to have our children’s best interest at heart to tell the children the truth. If Roxanne Shante is indeed on the level, then she owes it (not to Sheffner or anyone else) to those children to prove that she has neither lied to to them or misrepresented herself. If she has lied, she owes those same children an apology and explanation for her deception.
momowilly says:

September 4, 2009 at 8:06 am

Whether or not she received her degree from one of this country’s “fine” institutions or not, she graduated from the School of Hard Knocks and got a PhD from Life University. Let’s celebrate ALL black men and women who do positive things for the community.
Matt Silb says:

September 4, 2009 at 9:44 am

I don’t quite get your point. If Warner did not pay and did not have the clause, then what was wrong with the article? And if they did not pay and did not have the clause, then what “interest” do you think he was pursuing?
Ben says:

September 4, 2009 at 10:20 am

Here’s a press release she sent out after the Daily News article. With writing skills like this, it would be hard to get even a bachelor’s degree from Cornell.

“That’s right Dr.Roxanne Shante is taking New York City by storm . Sundays Daily News article was the number 1 that’s right #1 emailed article . Yahoo’s front page feature and today 8/24/2009 inside the New York Times . Dr.Roxanne Shante is in New York auditioning for the WBLS time slot if 2pm -6pm and if any one can handle that slot? it is the great Dr. Roxanne Shante , she is funny has quick whit and is qualified . Don’t take my word read for yourself . WBLS would be crazy not to give this native New Yorker a shot . Roxanne Shante once said that she knew she was going to be a star once she heard her song on WBLS . So let’s tune in and see if WBLS is the next stop for this star. I hope so .”

Further, the Dr. Dre crack is silly, since he’s not claiming to be a Ph.D. and everyone knows that. Second, the first sentence of this anti-gotcha piece of gotcha journalism is simply not true. Plenty of hip-hop artists have been exposed (via gotcha pieces) to not be as street as they claim. Akon and Rick Ross are two who spring immediately to mind.
Ben says:

September 4, 2009 at 10:25 am

Also, this is pure conjecture:

We can imagine him looking at that piece and going, “Aw shit. Now I’m gonna have to give those kiddie actors a college clause — no way!” Then firing up his word-processing program and emailing Slate’s editors.

Are you trying to imply this is part of a larger plan he has to fleece hip hop artists? Or that as a copyright lawyer he must be trying to destroy the form by discrediting a hip hop icon who has been more or less artistically inactive for 20 years?
Manju says:

September 4, 2009 at 10:39 am

o god. when will we be free of this condescending form of racism?
Ben says:

September 4, 2009 at 10:56 am

What are you referring to, Manju?
Manju says:

September 4, 2009 at 11:07 am

This very post by Jeff, Ben.
Ben says:

September 4, 2009 at 11:09 am

All said, it doesn’t change the greatness of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5_nfV0-b-o
SourceS says:

September 4, 2009 at 11:39 am

>>Due diligence is the point here.

So where is the due diligence, Jeff? I mean, Ben did more research than any writer before him and you argue for more dilligence…but you do none. Don’t be so lazy.

Here’s what Ben’s article says and there is zero in your article to refute any of it:
-Shante lied that she has a Ph.D. in psychology from Cornell (and she admitted as much to Ben)
-Shante lied that she holds an undergraduate degree from Marymount Manhattan (confirmed by Marymount Manhattan College communications director)
-Shante lied that Warner paid for her “education.” (confirmed by Warner)

Get in the game, Jeff! (P.S. We know who’s buttering your bread, too)
Ben says:

September 4, 2009 at 12:38 pm

Manju, are you saying Jeff’s post is racist or the Slate article is racist?
Manju says:

September 4, 2009 at 12:42 pm

“Manju, are you saying Jeff’s post is racist or the Slate article is racist?”

Jeff’s post, Ben. I mean, not in a KKK sort of way, but in a soft bigotry of low expectations way.
Roderick Allen says:

September 4, 2009 at 1:51 pm

Ben Sheffner didnt do his so called research to the fullest. When Shante said the reason for not using her real name was because of a DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ISSUE,he wanted the name. She didnt give it and that wasnt good enough for him. Who made Bens word law? Sounds like SLANDER TO ME STAY UP SHANTE LOVE YOU
OW says:

September 4, 2009 at 2:10 pm

I don’t get the slander angle.
Roderick Allen says:

September 4, 2009 at 2:50 pm

It’s not an angle. This is the bottom line. If Roxanne Shante tells a reporter. The reason she didnt use her real name is because of a DOMESTIC ISSUE, if she doesnt tell him the name thats it. As a reporter I either RESEARCH to find the name or leave it alone because WE DONT KNOW WHAT ISSUES THAT WOULD BRING.You dont just assume its a lie and put it out anyway because now your playing with peoples lives.Think about it,if Cornell knows the reason for Roxanne using a different name they couldnt disclose it anyway expecially if its a safety issue we dont know. Ben Sheffner works for Warner Brothers so he can get that info.
In closing. Lets assume its a safety issue she comes out with the name,proves everyone wrong,then something bad happens. The same people tearing her down would say,” Damn if I were her I wouldnt have told the name. THINK ABOUT IT……..
Damien says:

September 4, 2009 at 2:59 pm

If Roxanne was in college under an assumed name, she is no longer using that name and is using her given and stage names professionally again, both while claiming the education she got under her alleged third name. At this point, there is no point in her shielding that name. She is obviously not hiding from anyone, and is out in public telling this story. To yell her alleged “college name” from rooftops would not endanger her in the least, so why not use it and avoid all of the other nonsense? I submit that it’s because there is no “third name”. What say you, Ms Shante?
Damien says:

September 4, 2009 at 3:02 pm

Mr Allen, what part of Ben’s bio says he works for WB? I see past work, and current work for NBC Universal, a television and film company…

And I don’t see how her past (false) name endangers her future when she is out in public using both her given and stage names currently.
Roderick Allen says:

September 4, 2009 at 3:16 pm

Its not just about this story.Entertainers of all walks of life use differnt names to keep the media and others from digging into certain things in their private lives. You dont know what other ties that name could be tied up in. YOU DONT KNOW. YOU ARE ASSUMING. Just like everyone else. Thats why some people use fake names on the internet to protect their privacy. We dont know their situation.People use different ways to protect themselves for whatever reason.
OW says:

September 4, 2009 at 3:21 pm

BTW, here’s Shante in 2008, talking about her degrees: http://www.blender.com/blender-blog/43105/lifeafterrockroxanneshante.html

Interestingly, in that piece, she doesn’t say she got her PhD at Cornell, only her masters. The article implies she completed her degree at Marymount but apparently, they don’t offer PhDs. It’s all very confusing.
OW says:

September 4, 2009 at 3:25 pm

Roderick: Shante admitted that she didn’t complete her PhD. We can at least agree on this point, yes?
Damien says:

September 4, 2009 at 3:26 pm

Respectfully, Mr Allen, if I want to claim the rights or rewards I earned under one name using another, I must expose that name. The only explanation I can guess is if I did dirt using one name, I may be loathe to use it publicly. The problem there is that I lose all rights to any titles earned under the name I no longer use. Ms. Shante, nor any of the rest of us, get to claim something professionally without evidence of that claim. If I write an amazing piece under a web-name and want to claim it as my own, I must let everyone know that I am that web-name. Otherwise I can’t claim it.
Roderick Allen says:

September 4, 2009 at 3:32 pm

Ben use to represent several Warner Brother entities. so by him being an attorney you know he still has strong relationships at WB. And ask yourself why now Ben? What took you so long. Is it the big story that was done on Roxanne about her accomplishments piss you off.Or are you gonna tell us the real reason you did the story,because GOD forbid if other young upcoming artist who get record deals start asking for their schooling to be paid for.
Roderick Allen says:

September 4, 2009 at 3:35 pm

Damien I hear you. But who was it admitted too and why didnt it come out immediately?
Roderick Allen says:

September 4, 2009 at 3:37 pm

Damien gotta run man. I’ll hit this up later. Its been real.
Peace
Damien says:

September 4, 2009 at 3:37 pm

Do we know what kind of relationship he had w/ WB? Do we know if he was fired or is still friendly? We have no idea as to his current relationship with WB, so it is a moot point. It makes no sense to point fingers when you don’t answer the ones pointing at yourself. Mr Sheffield is meaningless to the story at hand, unless someone, say, investigates to discover if he truly has some coal in the fire or just followed the story as any journalist would.
Roderick Allen says:

September 4, 2009 at 3:41 pm

Thats what I’m saying we dont know. So I choose not to jump to conclusions not knowing the whole story from both sides.
OW says:

September 4, 2009 at 4:31 pm

Damien: I think the main divide here is between two false camps:

Those who think Shante’s background is fabricated.

Those who think the Slate article was an irresponsible hit piece.

These two things are not, in fact, mutually exclusive. You can believe BOTH. The problem I see is that even if #2 may be true to an extent, it doesn’t invalidate #1. However, it seems that those who really buy into #2 are unwilling to acknowledge #1.

Sheffner may (or may not) be some industry prick but I don’t think most of his facts are wrong since I’ve seen them verified by other folks. I mean, if the Slate story had been written by, say, Jody Rosen, I doubt we’d be having this conversation.
Jennifer says:

September 4, 2009 at 6:30 pm

This is pathetic. A woman gets caught in a web of SERIOUS lies, and people are mad at the person who exposed her because he might have an agenda? Really? Let me guess – it’s because Ben is racist and just checked up on a sista because she claimed she had a Ph.D., right? Please. Okay, let’s say she was a domestic abuse victim and DID get her degree under an assumed name. What was it?

As the daughter of a woman who was a domestic abuse victim and eventually DID go back to college to get her degree (I’d be happy to take a picture of it), I find this all deplorable. Using domestic violence to cover your ass? I don’t care how great Roxanne’s Revenge was, this is plain wrong.
K-town says:

September 4, 2009 at 7:40 pm

Aside from the facts and all others assumptions going back and forth I can offer a few things. My mother like Shante raised me and got her masters in Psych while raising my brother and I alone. Did it without my pops and then after everything she had some issues with her professor on her thesis after finishing all her credits after many years and had to fight to get her degree official cause of some bureaucratic bullshit (you takin’ notes yet?) and then got it cleared and finalized a year later (note: school’s get weird about crediting people who don’t fit their image). My mother nor anyone in her field I would imagine would be walking around with that title for kicks if they didn’t earn it. That is seriously insane! I doubt seriously Shante nor anyone with any sort of media attention would. My first point being that Masters and PhD’s are full of stop and go’s when it comes to fact checking when you/they try to reach the source. Secondly, I am a musician/producer and worked in record retail to making records and it sounds to me like the people who are so quick to defend Sheffner haven’t dealt with the record industry at all and all its shortcomings thus the fall of the record industry/major labels (name your favorite record store still in business). If you know ANYTHING about the industry you know the majors gun for young talent and use these ridiculous contracts/ludicrous requirements to bind artists well into their adulthood and beyond. And 20 years is nothing. Just look at all the blues artists that got screwed and drifted into obscurity with nothing to show for it. Shante did something unique and got a PhD and said fuck this and stayed in the game just rhyming and pulled out of the industry which is now collapsing and those that are staying afloat are barely floating/signed and if they are its all T&A. When Lil Kim gets a high school diploma get back to me. But in the meantime save your petty investigations for something worthwhile like why you have to blog minute to minute about how this accomplised artist/MC’s degree MIGHT not be official or how a shady-ass litigation lawyer with a chip on his starched shoulder with the name and naaaasty resume to match (did you bother looking this dude up???!!) MIGHT have any platform to begin with. NOTE: ever work for litigation lawyers? Didn’t think so. I did. Not the kind of folks that give two shits about musicians or compensating them for what they’re owed. And Jennifer you need to go back to school for a few more credits. Maybe when you’re in a more dire situation you’ll understand the idea anonymity when avoiding an abuser/attacker.

“so you best go about your way and have a nice day”…

peace,

K-town
Anthony says:

September 4, 2009 at 11:15 pm

Seeing as how much of Sheffner’s motivation was deduced based on his resume, I’m surprised you didn’t offer some full disclosure yourself, Jeff. Did you discuss Shante’s education in the panel she appeared on that you moderated for Cornell last year? It comes up in an article covering the event (http://dev.cornellsun.com/section/daze/content/2008/11/04/conference-draws-hip-hop-pioneers-cornell). I don’t want to assume why you left out any personal interaction you’ve had with Shante, but I’m guessing your perspective on her motivations might be a little more enlightening than your take on Sheffner’s because of it.

I’m also curious if you guys have a problem with a writer from TechDirt finding the same information after asking his fellow Cornell grads if any knew Shante while she was allegedly in school with them (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090902/0457456080.shtml). His motivation seems pretty benign but maybe you can find some character flaw I’m missing.
Jeff Chang says:

September 5, 2009 at 6:10 am

Wow. Take a day off to get some assignments done and look what happens.

OK, randomly.

First, Wayne and I stand on our post, props or lumps, so there’s no need to repeat it all despite the maddeningly large amount of misreading going on.

To specific points:

Oliver, yes…the point of the post is that context matters. We think we’ve shown why.

Anthony… If I’ve moderated a panel on which Shante appeared that doesn’t usually necessitate a requirement of disclosure but, fair play right? So cool, here’s the deal: the Cornell conference was on pioneers in hip-hop. The first time I’d ever met Shante was onstage. The topic was the early days of hip-hop. Did I ask her about her education? No, there was a lot to talk about, a ton of panelists, and it wasn’t the topic at hand.

O & Anthony… To us, the domestic violence lead was one not just worth pursuing, but potentially central. Our main question here is: why wasn’t it?

Anthony…you ask what my perspective is on her motivations–I don’t know. To us, the story seems tragic. This is why we wrote that there’s “much more of the story begging to be told”, and why we were appalled that Sheffner and the editors decided to stop at the one lead that might have taken the story in a different, and to us, much more enlightening direction.

Now why is the domestic violence lead important? Because it might provide an explanation for why Sheffner could not locate all of her school records. The writer and editors at least have to rule this explanation out. But if it turns out she’s right, then suddenly it’s a different, and we think, much more compelling story.

Instead it turned into a dirty partial-debunk, revealing as Roderick and many others have said here and elsewhere, a brutal, callous treatment of the real person whose life is at stake here.

So Anthony, you want to know my motivation? Boom, that’s it right there.

Oliver has said that debunking is now the primary mode of writing on the web. I’m only now beginning to understand–in this post and the comments–how right he is.

It contradicts my basic warrior spirit to admit this, but maybe fighting fire with more fire isn’t always really a good thing?

But all that said, I gotta add these two things:

Manju…quoting George Bush to call me a racist makes me think you really don’t know what racism is.

SourceS…wait, you know who’s buttering my bread? Ooooooooo.
OW says:

September 5, 2009 at 6:54 am

I just want to know who all these butterers are. I have some bread that could use some butterin’, ideally tax-free and available in monthly installments.
SourceS says:

September 5, 2009 at 8:16 am

The point is that Jeff is as biased as any other writer out there. It’s in his best interest to protect the hip hop community. But it’s funny that that’s the one small aside in my post he responds to. The much bigger point is that he is attacking what he claims to be lazy jouralism with lazy journalism. Pick up a phone. Email someone. Anything besides this. It’s just sad.

Feed Me!

Revolutions

DJ Nu-Mark :: Take Me With You
DJ Nu-Mark remixes the diaspora…party ensues!
El General + Various Artists :: Mish B3eed : Khalas Mixtape V. 1
The crew at Enough Gaddafi bring the most important mixtape of 2011–the street songs that launched the Tunisian & Egyptian Revolutions…
J. Period + Black Thought + John Legend :: Wake Up! Radio mixtape
Remixing the classic LP w/towering contributions from Rakim, Q-Tip + Mayda Del Valle
Lyrics Born :: As U Were
Bright production + winning rhymes in LB’s most accessible set ever
Model Minority :: The Model Minority Report
The SoCal Asian American rap scene that produced FM keeps surprising…
Mogwai :: Hardcore Won't Die But You Will
Dare we call it majestic?
Taura Love Presents :: Picki People Volume One
From LA via Paris with T-Love, the global post-Dilla generation goes for theirs…

Word

Cormac McCarthy :: Blood Meridian
Read this now before Hollywood f*#ks it up.
Dave Tompkins :: How To Wreck A Nice Beach
Book of the decade, nuff said.
Joe Flood :: The Fires
The definitive account of why the Bronx burned
Mark Fischer :: Capitalist Realism
K-Punk’s philosophical manifesto reads like his blog, snappy and compelling. Just replace pop music with post-post-Marxism. Pair with Josh Clover’s 1989 for the full hundred.
Nell Irvin Painter :: The History of White People
Well worth a Glenn Beck rant…and everyone’s scholarly attention
Robin D.G. Kelley :: Thelonious Monk : The Life And Times Of An American Original
Monk as he was meant to be written
Tim Wise :: Colorblind
Wise’s call for a color-conscious agenda in an era of “post-racial” politics is timely
Victor Lavalle :: Big Machine
Victor Lavalle does it again!