Matthew

Keys
5377 Vaca Station Road #283
Elmira, California 95825-0238

To: Benjamin Wey
40 Wall Street
New York, New York 10005-1304



August 27, 2015

Sent via Electronic Mail



Benjamin:


First, let me thank you for the opportunity to write for your publication TheBlot Magazine.
When I was invited to join as a contributing reporter in January 2014, the invitation came at a
time when due to an ongoing legal matter few other news organizations would consider my
work. Although there had been some offers made before and since then, for nearly two years I
found TheBlot to offer a unique and refreshing approach toward fact-based and opinion
journalism that helped foster interesting, colorful and meaning pieces.


Having said that, a colleague at a major online news publication recently brought to my
attention that a news feature published on TheBlot under my byline included statements about a
number of people that have been the subject of critical pieces written throughout the site.1 Upon
reviewing the article, I recognized that the main subject matter had been the basis for a piece I
submitted in January 2014, but I did not recognize several passages in the article that were
critical of certain individuals. I concluded that the story was the article that I submitted to the
site in January 2014, but that it had been altered sometime afterward to include commentary
that I did not write.


Concerned about the article, I reached out to editor-in-chief Nikki Mascali by e-mail2 on
August 26 to inquire about the alterations. Nikki responded by saying she was unaware of the
alterations. Nikki said the article pre-dated her joining TheBlot as editor-in-chief, and asked if I
would be able to provide a copy of the original article so she could restore the online version to
its original state. I later informed her that I did not keep copies of articles independent from
those published on the site, but that the publishing software used by TheBlot3 allowed for
administrators to restore prior version of an article after they had been changed. Nikki affirmed,

1 Those subjects include, among other people, a woman named Helena Bouveng. It is my understanding Ms. Bouveng
was recently involved in a contentious legal issue that was decided by a court earlier this summer.
2 Per your request, a copy of these e-mails have been provided to you separate from this letter.
3 The publishing software is called WordPress. WordPress is a content management system used by bloggers,
writers, news organizations and others for purposes of creating, publishing and maintaining written and visual
content.

saying she would figure it out and that she would never alter something like this. I told her
that I did not feel she altered the article, but that I had a strong suspicion of who did and that I
would handle it. She later informed me that the article and others had been restored to their
original versions.


On August 27, I thanked Nikki for restoring the article and asked her if she would be
willing to provide me with your e-mail address. Nikki replied with a telephone number and said
you would be available for a phone call at 3:00 p.m. local time (Eastern Time).


At 3:00 p.m. local time, I called the number provided to me by e-mail4. I informed you that
the purpose of my call was to raise concerns about the alterations after a reporter at another
news organization had pointed them out to me. You acknowledged that you knew the reporter in
question, and that Nikki had brought the alterations to your attention. You stated that you
reviewed the altered articles and determined that there was a technical glitch in the early part
of this year that caused the content of the articles to be altered.

You stated that technicians resolved this glitch by inserting a bunch of photos in various
news articles, and that once you determined that had been the cause of the alteration, you
instructed Nikki to immediately correct the error and informed her that they cannot occur
again. You stated that you were unaware of the issue until it had been brought to your attention
by Nikki, and that you instructed Nikki to reach out to me with an apology for the technical
glitches that we experienced and that it was not anybodys intention to do anything different
with respect to the presentation of the content.

Based on my own experience with the publishing software, I informed you that I
understood the software used by TheBlot to create a log of any post-publication alterations so
that such alterations may be tracked and reverted if necessary. I then asked if the revision log
was reviewed in order to determine the cause of the alteration.

You stated that you had limited technical knowledge of how the site operates and that you
had no idea what (I was) talking about. You said the magazine has over 100 contributing
journalists, and that TheBlot is an open platform for users and readers to contribute content
and that me, as a publisher, I dont look at it at all as far aswhat article goes up and what
article comes down.

You then stated that, as a contributing journalist to TheBlot, I was considered to be a
third party contributor, and that my role as a third party contributor was intended to shield
TheBlot from any legal liability with regard to the content that was published on the site.5 You
then affirmed that, when a problem arose, the correct thing to do was to approach Nikki and that

4 The content of this phone call was recorded in compliance with New York Penal Law 250.00, 250.05 and other
applicable state and federal laws.
5 You cited Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal statute passed in 1996 that provides some
legal shield for interactive online services with regard to content submitted by users as part of the websites
interactive experience. Having reviewed the law, it is my belief that your interpretation of the Act as it applies to
freelance contributions made to TheBlot is incorrect.

your direction to her was to fix it, whatever youve got to do, we need to stick to whatever the
original contributors content was.

I reiterated the point that the publishing software created a revision log, to which you
said that I was talking to someone with a substantial financial background and zero technical
work, and that inquiring about the revision log to you would be akin to asking a concert
professor about how to play with Legos.

You then said that my apparent concern was that tabloid writer at [news publication]
and encouraged me to look at the reporters Twitter profile, saying I would be shocked and
disgusted to find the reporter had naked male organs floating around [their] Twitter page. You
called the reporter a sick bitch6 and said in your view that people like that do not rise to the
level of professionalism thats worthy of our response.

I ended the call by asking if Nikki would be the appropriate point of contact for any
additional issue with the articles or the site. You responded: Absolutely, thats the right
channel.

After our call, I e-mailed Nikki with a brief synopsis of the topics we discussed. I informed
her that you stated you had technical limitations as to the operation of the website, but that you
had affirmed her as the appropriate point of contact for any issues. I then asked her if she would
be able to provide me with a revision log regarding the article in question.

The revision log provided by Nikki showed three alterations to the article. Two of those
revisions were said to have been made in order to restore the article to its original form. A third
revision dated July 23 of this year was unknown. Nikki later e-mailed me to say that she was no
longer allowed to discuss this matter and that she would need to retract any information
provided in our earlier e-mails.

A short time later, you and I again spoke by phone7, and you informed me that you were
upset to learn that I had gone over [your] head and asked Nikki about the revision log. You said
that you had made clear in your earlier call that a revision log would not be provided upon
request. You then told me to move on, and asked if I would be willing to delete records of my
conversation with Nikki regarding this issue. You said if I was unable or unwilling to delete those
records, we would have to end our working relationship.

Benjamin, I have thoroughly enjoyed contributing articles of interest and importance, and
believe some of the stories including our expos on Ferguson, Missouris former chief of police
and our 14-month investigation into law enforcements use of secret cellphone surveillance
devices would not have been told had it not been for the financing and publication space you
and your company provided.


6 You referred to this colleague as a bitch several times in our phone conversation.
7 See footnote 4.

However, I am discouraged by your approach and attitude toward my concern that

several news features appearing on your site under my byline were altered post-publication. The
subject matter, written content and visual images depicted in the altered articles in no way
reflected my original work, and it is my belief that the defamatory and potentially libelous
content appearing under my byline placed me in very real legal jeopardy during the time it
appeared on the website.

To satisfy my concerns, I asked repeatedly if a copy of the revision log could be provided.
You stated in our initial phone call that you were unsure what a revision log was; later, you made
it clear you were angered that the revision log had been provided to me. It is my position that,
had the alterations indeed been the result of a technical glitch, providing the revision log would
not have been a contentious issue.

During our calls, you also used language about a colleague at another news organization
that I consider to be unprofessional. Although it may adequately reflect your opinion, your
repeated reference to this colleague as a bitch made me feel uncomfortable and created an
atmosphere of hostility during our conversation.

Furthermore, your repeated defamation of said colleague made me reflect on opinion
pieces found on TheBlot centered on individuals who have covered you and your business or for
whom you otherwise generally disagree. Although these articles are written under various
bylines, there is a strong indication that they were encouraged, and perhaps even produced, by
you. The display of defamation exerted by you and certain writers for TheBlot make me
concerned that if I bring a matter to your attention that you disagree with, I will find myself the
subject of a critical piece on your website.

For those reasons, I regret to say that I will be unable to continue to pursue a working
relationship with TheBlot. I wish you and your staff well.


Regards,

--x--

Matthew Keys