Interesting: a couple of weeks ago I linked to an LA Weekly story about the battle over mold. I thought it was a fascinating piece, but Sharon Kramer, the controversial "mold warrior" at the center of the story, most certainly did not like it. In her defense (see her comment to the link above) she cites a Wall Street Journal article called "Amid Suits Over Mold, Experts Wear Two Hats," from January 9, 2007, that unfortunately does not appear linkable except in pdf form. Kramer sees the story as vindication: I see it as a writer raising questions (are expert witnesses who question claims of toxic mold truly objective?)
This is the nature of a controversy: Definitive answers are hard to find. Classic example. In the LA Weekly last week, editor Jill Stewart, attacked by Kramer, posts that Bruce Kelman won his libel suit against Kramer on August 27th in a jury trial. Definitive, no?
But the only confirmation I can find on the web is a post at Overlawyered, by a writer who complains he was somewhat misquoted in the original Weekly story, and suggests that if Kelman does win the case, it will be a "Pyrrhic victory." So I honestly don't know if that counts as vindication for Kelman or not.
Readers can judge for themselves if the comments by Kramer fit her description in the original LA Weekly story linked above. She certainly resorts to invective at the drop of a hat. In many years of journalism, in many forms of commentary, this is the first time anyone has ever called me a hack. (In an email) Ouch!
