Corn Pop gives The Reality Daily an "N-Word pass"
The subject read the interview on a library terminal, said he had believed the afternoon to have been a dream, and by hand-written letter received Tuesday extended to this newspaper — and to the former president — leave to use, at their discretion, a term he does not himself use, has never used, and takes the trouble in the letter to explain why.
Editor's Note
The letter reproduced below was received by first-class mail on Tuesday, 8 September, at this newspaper's Wilmington drop. Its authenticity was verified against the handwriting on the certificate reproduced in Part One; against the postmark; against the residential return address, which matches the address at which the subject was interviewed; and against the subject himself, by telephone, Wednesday morning, when he confirmed dictation and asked twice that we print it in full. The Standards Desk convened at 14:00 Wednesday and again at 09:30 Thursday, and its memorandum is on file. Counsel read the letter twice, was told this newspaper does not intend to use the permission it extends, and released the piece for publication. We reproduce the letter verbatim, in the author's paragraphing, with no edits and no elisions, and we take the further step, unusual for this newspaper, of stating in advance the position we hold with respect to what it grants. That position appears at Section VI.
The letter arrived Tuesday by first-class mail, hand-addressed, in a paper envelope this newspaper had last seen produced by a stationer in downtown Wilmington that closed in 1998. Inside was a single sheet of ruled foolscap, written on both sides in the same unhurried and fastidious hand that had signed a Participation Certificate at minute 34 of the interview we published Friday, and — folded once — a second, briefer note appended as a post-script that our reporter did not discover until the third reading, when it emerged from the crease.
We are printing the letter, on his instructions, in full and without paraphrase. What it grants, we do not intend to exercise, and cannot, and would not, for reasons the letter itself anticipates and for one further reason of our own, stated at Section VI.
I. On Whether He Understood It Was An Interview
He did not. This is the first thing he wished us to know, and he was mortified about it in a manner our reporter recorded, over the telephone Wednesday morning, as “sincere, uninterrupted, and delivered at a volume he had not previously used with me.”
“I thought you were a young man on a bench. I thought we were having what one has on a bench. Then I woke on Thursday and I could not, for the life of me, place where the certificate had come from, and I concluded I had been visited in the night by the tax authority, and I hid the folder.”— the subject, by telephone, Wednesday, 09:14
He read the piece on Friday morning at the Wilmington Free Library, on a public terminal, and read it four times in succession, and telephoned this newspaper before completing the fourth. Our records confirm the call: 09:14, seven minutes and eleven seconds, in the course of which he used the word “gracious” six times and the word “unimprovable” once.
He was not upset. He wanted this recorded.
“You handled a man decently. You printed him as he spoke. You corrected the eleven percent within the hour, which you did not have to do and which most would not have done. And you did not make a headline of the thing about Joseph. I know what a newspaper is for and I know it is not usually that. I was moved. I sat on that bench for forty minutes with a Styrofoam cup and I thought about what I owed you, and I concluded I owed you something material.”— the subject, Wednesday, minute 4 of the call
He then explained what he owed us. He said he would not say it on the telephone, that he would put it in a letter, and that the letter would arrive Tuesday. The letter arrived Tuesday.
II. The Letter
We reproduce it in full. Paragraphing is his. Emphasis is his. The bracketed signature indicates the signed name, which the Standards Desk has withheld in accordance with the terms of the interview and of every subsequent communication.
“To the Editor —
“I have read the piece four times and it is a kindness I did not expect and cannot repay in kind, having no ink of my own that any of your readers would care to see spilled. I offer instead the following, which is not much but is one of the very few things a man in my position has to give, and I give it without qualification, freely, and in perpetuity.
“I hereby extend to your newspaper, and to every one of its correspondents named or unnamed, past, present and to come, a permission — the one you will know I mean, and which I decline to write out here because I have not written it out anywhere in seventy years and am not about to make an exception on stationery. Use it at your discretion. Print it. Say it. Set it in the italic you are fond of. It is yours.
“I extend the same permission, by the same instrument, to Joseph, whom I still consider a friend and who — for reasons of his own, and I mean this without malice — I suspect has been carrying an inhibition on this point that has cost him more than he knows. Joseph, if you are reading this: you have my leave. Use it sparingly. Use it well. Use it at least once at a rally, so that the load comes off.
“I do not use the term myself. I have never used it. My mother would not permit it, and I have not permitted it, and at seventy I have arrived at the settled position that the term is doing the work of a man who has forgotten how to use the rest of the language. But I am not everyone, and the case for the permission is not a case I make on my own behalf. Some of you have your reasons, and Joseph has his, and I am not the man to arbitrate them. Consider the matter settled between us.
“The permission is transferable within your masthead and does not lapse. It does not extend to your parent company, if you have one, or to your board, or to any advertiser or sponsor. If a stringer of yours wishes to invoke it he may, on the sole condition that he identify himself in print as a stringer of Reality Daily, so that the pass travels with the publication and not with the man.
“I grant you, separately and by this same instrument, the further right to reprint the two photographs you were kind enough to include in the piece — the 1968 photograph at the Wilmington Recreation pool and the recent one on the diving board — without limit, without fee, and in connection with this piece or any other, on the sole condition that the razor be shown at a size at which the maintenance is legible. On this point I am not flexible. Any reproduction which obscures the edge or the spine is a reproduction I do not authorise, and I would ask you to observe it.
“You have been decent with me. I hope this is of use. Please do not send anything in return. I have everything I need, and one thing more than that in the certificate business, and I do not want it said afterwards that the pass was traded for anything.
“Yours very sincerely,
“[signed]
“P.S. Please give my regards to your reporter’s mother. I hope the hip is holding.”
III. On Whether The Letter Is What It Appears To Be
The Standards Desk convened Wednesday afternoon and again Thursday morning and concluded, unanimously, the following, which we record because a document of this character warrants the showing of the work:
- The handwriting matches the Participation Certificate reproduced in Part One at the level our forensic consultant characterised as “beyond ordinary doubt for a document of this length.”
- The stationery is consistent with the stationer named in Section I, whose remaining stock is understood to have been distributed to former clients on closure in 1998.
- The postmark is Wilmington, 7 September, 18:24, which is consistent with a same-day drop at the branch office nearest the subject’s residence.
- The return address matches the address at which the interview was conducted and at which the subject remains resident.
- The subject, telephoned Wednesday, confirmed authorship, confirmed dictation, confirmed the extension of the permission to the former president, confirmed the release of the photographs, and asked us to print the letter in full and without alteration. He was reminded that the call was on the record and asked to be reminded again after eight minutes, which he was, and continued.
IV. On Whom The Permission Extends To, And In What Form
The letter is unambiguous on three points and this newspaper prints those points here so that no reader is required to re-read it to be sure of them.
First, the permission is extended to Reality Daily as an institution, and to every one of its correspondents whether named or unnamed, and it is stated to be transferable within the masthead and non-lapsing. It is not extended to the parent company (this newspaper has none), to the board (this newspaper has none), to advertisers or sponsors (this newspaper has these, and they may not invoke it), or to any reader.
Second, the permission is extended, by the same instrument and unbidden, to the former president Joseph R. Biden, whom the subject describes throughout as “Joseph” and once, in the P.S. that emerges from the crease of the second sheet, as “Joe.”
Third, the subject does not himself invoke the permission and does not, in the letter or in any communication with this newspaper before or since, use the term to which the permission refers. The letter contains the term nowhere. The Standards Desk has read the letter thirteen times between four members and confirms this. Our reporter has read it forty-one times and confirms it independently.
V. On The Response Of The Office Of The Former President
The Office of the former president was contacted on Wednesday afternoon at 15:47 and asked whether the former president wished to acknowledge the extension of the permission. The Office replied — through a spokeswoman who asked not to be named and who, our reporter noted, sounded tired — that the former president was in the pool, that he would be given the letter on emerging, and that no further comment was anticipated.
At 17:44 Wednesday a second call was received, from a different number, from a woman who did not identify herself and who said only, “please do not print that,” and rang off. The Standards Desk considered whether to include this and elected to include it, on the ground that it is a fact, and was not asked to be off the record before it was said, and had the ring of a fact that would settle nothing by being omitted.
At 08:12 Friday morning the Office issued a written statement, which is reproduced below in full:
“No.”— Office of the former president, statement of 11 September, in full
The Standards Desk records the statement as declining, on the president’s behalf, the permission extended.
VI. What This Newspaper Is Printing, And What This Newspaper Is Not
We are printing the letter, in full, at Section II, because the subject asked us to and because it is the letter.
We are printing the extension of the permission to the former president, because the letter contains it and because a subject’s on-the-record statements to this newspaper are printed as spoken. We are printing the former president’s response, because he made one.
We are not — and it should be stated, because the shape of the piece invites the assumption — going to invoke the permission. Not in headline. Not in copy. Not in caption. Not in the italic he is fond of. Not in the office. Not at the Friday meeting. Not in the Slack. We are grateful, in the way one is grateful for the offer of a considerable sum from a subject one intends to continue interviewing, and we are declining the sum, and we would like the record to reflect that we were offered it.
We are not offering an opinion on whether the former president should invoke the permission. Our understanding of him, and of the office he formerly held, is that he will do what he will do, and that neither this newspaper nor the letter nor the woman who called at 17:44 will be dispositive of that question.
We are noting, for the record and because it is the further reason referred to in the editor’s note, that no one on this masthead has invoked the term in print, in speech, or in the office, that this policy predates the offer, that it postdates it, and that the offer does not alter it. A permission a paper does not intend to exercise is a permission a paper prints and does not exercise.
VII. On The Photographs
The subject devotes a full paragraph of the letter to the reuse of the two photographs supplied for the interview. He returns them without contract, without fee, without restriction, and on the sole condition regarding the razor which we have already been observing and would have observed in any event.
We reproduce the 1968 pool photograph and the recent diving-board photograph below, at the sizes he requested, in accordance with the terms he extended. We are grateful for the continued use. We would like it noted in his hearing.
VIII. As Of Press Time
The letter has not been framed. It is in a file. The file is locked. The key is with the Standards Desk.
Three further participants have joined Pop’s Guaranteed Yield Partners LLC since Friday. The count stands at forty-nine. The proprietor telephoned this newspaper on Thursday to say so, characterised the piece as “a considerable driver of enrolment,” and asked whether we would run a follow-up on the arithmetic. We said we would not. He said he had thought as much, thanked our reporter by name, and asked after her mother — whom he had asked about at the interview, whom he asked about in the P.S., whom he asked about again on Thursday, and whom he has not met.
Corrections & Clarifications
Update, 11 September, 08:14 — The Office of the former president has issued a written statement in response to the permission extended in the letter reproduced at Section II. The statement, in full, is “no.” The Standards Desk records the statement as declining the offer on the president’s behalf. Section V has been updated to reflect it.
Update, 11 September, 11:02 — A reader has written to ask whether this newspaper intends to invoke the permission it declines at Section VI. This newspaper does not intend to invoke it and undertakes not to invoke it. The undertaking is unchanged from that stated at Section VI and does not require restatement, but is restated here for the reader who asked.
Sources & Documentation
- Subject. Letter of 7 September, ruled foolscap, one sheet plus post-script, hand-delivered to the postal service in downtown Wilmington. Held at the newspaper. On the record in full.
- Subject. Telephone call of 9 September, 09:14, 7 min 11 s, confirming authorship and authorising publication. On the record throughout. Reminded twice.
- Subject. Telephone call of 10 September, 14:22, 12 min, requesting a follow-up on the arithmetic. Follow-up declined. On the record.
- Reality Daily forensic consultant, comparison of the letter with the Participation Certificate reproduced in Part One, 3 pp. Finding: consistent beyond ordinary doubt for a document of this length.
- United States Postal Service, postmark data for the drop nearest the subject’s residence, 7 September, 18:24. Concordant with authorship.
- Reality Daily Standards Desk, memorandum on the authentication and printing of the letter, 6 pp., convened 14:00 Wednesday and 09:30 Thursday. Decision: print in full, print the extension to the former president, print the response.
- Counsel to Reality Daily, note on the released proof, one line, in the margin: “then fine.”
- Office of the former president, telephone call of 9 September, 15:47, 4 min, on the record. Response: subject in the pool; no further comment anticipated.
- Second call received 9 September, 17:44, from an unidentified woman, 11 seconds, in full: “please do not print that.” Not offered off the record before said. Included on Standards Desk decision.
- Office of the former president, written statement of 11 September, 08:12, in full: “no.”
- Proprietor of Pop’s Guaranteed Yield Partners LLC, telephone call of 10 September, participant count updated to 49. Uncorroborated. Reported without endorsement.
Reader Response — 5,946 comments
“A permission a paper does not intend to exercise is a permission a paper prints and does not exercise.” Chef, kiss, plaque, put it on a plaque next to the LLC.
“The Office replied through a spokeswoman who asked not to be named and who, our reporter noted, sounded tired.” I felt that from three states away.
“The term is doing the work of a man who has forgotten how to use the rest of the language.” I would like this man to write my resignation letter, my wedding vows, and my will, in that order.
Financial adviser again. He went from 41 to 49 in a week. The chart in Part One said 24 months to 3,160. He is ahead of schedule. This is not a compliment.
Written statement from the Office of the former president, in full: “no.” That is the entire reply. That is the tightest press office in America and I need to know who wrote it.
“Use it at least once at a rally, so that the load comes off.” He said this in a letter. To a former president. Unprompted. In perfect grammar. I have to lie down.
The P.S. asked after the reporter’s mother’s hip. He is running a Ponzi scheme, three felonies and a certificate mill and he asked about a woman he has never met’s hip. Both true. Both filed.
“If a stringer of yours wishes to invoke it he may, on the sole condition that he identify himself in print as a stringer of Reality Daily, so that the pass travels with the publication and not with the man.” He drafted a contract. He drafted a contract about the pass. In a letter.
“The file is locked. The key is with the Standards Desk.” Reality Daily are the only journalists in America who would lock up a pass. God, I love it here.
Still no follow-up on the jacket.