Reporter’s Notebook: Yelling fire in Tupper Lake
The email that sparked accusations of anti-Semitism in Tupper Lake
The North Country is famous for circular firing squads, bitter feuds, and epic turf wars.
But these days, no place quite rivals the community of Tupper Lake for self-immolation.
The latest explosion, detailed in my report this morning, was sparked by Jack Delehanty, a long-time, vocal opponent of the Adirondack Club and Resort.
Delehanty, a former assistant district attorney in Franklin County, wrote a tasteless email earlier this month.
In his message sent to members of his hunting camp, Delehanty celebrated the fact that resort developer Tom Lawson faces financial difficulties, including the possible foreclosure of his private home.
Editorial from the Tupper Lake Free Press
Publisher Dan McClelland published a strongly worded editorial, accusing “opponents” of the Adirondack Club and Resort of making a “nasty and deeply injurious religious and racial slur” against Susan Lawson, wife of developer Tom Lawson, who is Jewish.
McClelland was responding to this line in Delehanty’s email: “Soak at your own risk in the hot tub after The Nearly-Hassidic One has been there.
Sounds incendiary, right?
But before writing his editorial, McClelland made no effort to find out what Delehanty meant by the phrase, nor did he make any effort to find out who exactly wrote the email or what was intended by it.
Instead, he vaulted to the conclusion that this was evidence of “how far some ACR opponents have stooped in their quest to kill the project.”
An investigation by NCPR found strong evidence to support Delehanty’s claim that the “Near-Hassidic One” reference was a private joke, clearly in poor taste, but not aimed at Susan Lawson.
>Delehanty argues that he was making an off-color reference to another member of his hunting club, with Jewish heritage, a claim corroborated by that individual in a background interview with NCPR.
It’s also worth noting that we could find no one in Tupper Lake who gives credence to the idea that Delehanty or anyone opposing the resort holds the kind of virulent anti-Semitic views suggested by the Free Press editorial.
(One exception is Susan Lawson herself, who is understandably upset by the whole affair and who maintains that Delehanty’s email was a deliberate anti-Semitic attack directed against her.)
It is also clear from our investigation that the controversial phrase was used by Delehanty alone, in a private email sent to members of his hunting camp, and was not produced by “opponents” of the project as part of the wider debate.
Delehanty and McClelland are both prominent community leaders, and both are sophisticated and knowledgeable about the ways of public discourse.
They know better than anyone that the mood in Tupper Lake is volatile, with the Adirondack Club and Resort project still locked in legal and regulatory limbo, and battle lines between neighbors sharply drawn.
What both men did in recent weeks amounted to yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. One sent a cruel, mean-spirited email that could only serve to inflame animosities.
The other published incredibly serious claims of anti-Semitism, and linked those charges to one faction in a tense political debate, apparently without making any effort to determine the facts of the case.
As a reporter who has covered the resort project for the better part of a decade, I can’t help but think that the community of Tupper Lake deserves better.
Tags: adirondacks, media
So, it’s OK to make derogatory remarks as long as you can reference someone who’s not offended by them? I don’t know what’s more offensive, dancing on someone’s financial grave or trying to be clever about race or religion. Either way, the comments are stupid and offensive and calling that out is not “adding gasoline to the blaze.”
Is this really news? Someone acting like a jerk would only be newsworthy under these loony circumstances.
The newsworthy part is where it got played in the local press without getting checked out first. The stupid part is Mr. Delahanty sending an email to a large group of people and assuming it would remain private. He did apologize for taking pleasure in the Lawsons financial difficulties which was appropriate.
What is there to check out? It’s a stupid and offensive comment no matter who it is directed at. Apologies are appropriate but you can’t un-say something; the damage is done.
Peter, I hear where you and Brian M. are coming from, but to think that a news organization would spend any of their time on such a story in the first place just seems weird to me. They must have better things to do. I think this shows how far this whole thing has sunk.
Original Larry –
We check things out because we want to know what’s true. In this case a) Delehanty’s comments were apparently aimed at a different person than suggested by the Tupper Lake Free Press and b) they were not written by multiple “opponents” eager to “kill the project” but by one individual in an email to members of his hunting club.
It is, of course, perfectly reasonable to still conclude that Delehanty’s joke about one of his hunting friends was offensive. But it’s also probably helpful to know that the target of the joke does not feel that the humor reflects anti-Semitism.
Finally, an additional thought that I didn’t make in the original post.
In our society, anti-Semitism is one of the vilest, most socially unacceptable views that a person can hold. It is one of those “third rail” issues.
When you attribute hatred of Jewish people to a person or a group of people, you are doing something very serious and grave indeed.
Even outside of Tupper Lake’s charged atmosphere, these claims warranted fact-checking.
–Brian, NCPR
I should also have better things to do but let me ask something on this:
” a) Delehanty’s comments were apparently aimed at a different person than suggested by the Tupper Lake Free Press”
How do you know that this is true? Because the guy said it and his friend backed it up? Don’t know much about journalism but is that how it works? Wouldn’t you run for cover in this case, how do you know he is not doing that? Also, if this is true what was his friend doing in the Lawson’s hot tub? Despite what the accused says here it seems more reasonable that the remark was aimed at the Lawson’s or is it just a coincidence that they are Jewish?
People have Delahanty’s comments and his personal attack on the family. But what struck me is the shocking behavior of the Tupper Lake Free Press editor.
He said he didn’t contact the alleged author of an email before publishing his attack editorial based on that email because he didn’t know if the person really wrote it.
Wait, what?!
Isn’t that the opposite of what marginally responsible journalists are supposed to do?! Isn’t this EXACTLY the sort of situation when a journalist SHOULD contact the alleged author to verify its authenticity before attacking its content?
Instead, it’s attack first, worry about factualness maybe at some indeterminate point in the future… if at all.
I’m not from Tupper Lake and I don’t have a dog in the ACR fight but this remark tells me an awful lot about what sort of tabloid trash is practiced by the Tupper Lake Free Press.
Oops… should have wrote: People have *rightly condemned* Delahanty’s comments and…
Wake Up Brian,
The email said “soak at your own risk in the hot tub after The Nearly-Hassidic One has been there.”
Jack’s friend has never been to the Lawson’s house. That comment was aimed at Susan Lawson. Jack is just trying to cover his ass by saying it was aimed at his friend and you fell for it.
Brian’s last point – that publicly charging someone with anti-semitism – especially as a journalist -without checking out the story is really a key point. Ideally the role of a local newspaper is to shed light and transparency on local controversies so that passions can be controlled or justice be done.
That was not done in this case.
To give McClelland credit for being a journalist is a joke. To label him a prominent community leader is outrageous. He has no credibilty at all. In this instance Brian you rightly critisize him for not checking w Delehanty about the email. But that is just the way McClelland operates. If you go through any article he has ever written on the ACR you will never see where he sought out anyones thoughts, opinions or views, on any of the issues, other than those who are 100% in support of it.
Additionally he routinely inserts his interpretations of others words or actions to suit his purposes. This latest editorial is a perfect example. And while he professes to be outraged by this email he was perfectly willing to print a full page ad in his rag with a picture of Delehantys house shown prominently in an attempt to silence him and any other person who had any questions at all about the ACR.
Brian(MOFYC not NCPR) Ditto your 9:47am posts.
Tupper Laker –
Now that I’ve presented the facts as I understand them, of course you are free to draw your own conclusions. The tone of my essay above was shaped by these points.
1. In what context would it make sense for Delehanty to describe Susan Lawson as the “Nearly-Hassidic One”?
2. Does it make sense that Delehanty would have sent what would amount to a virulently anti-semitic message to other members of his hunting club, including a member with Jewish heritage?
3. How is it that Delehanty has lived and worked in the North Country for decades without displaying any anti-Semitic behavior before now?
4. I interviewed the member of the hunting club who believes he was the target of Delehanty’s joke is a highly respected community leader who supports the resort project. He is absolutely convinced that the email referenced him and was part of an on-going exchange of off-color ethnic humor among club members.
–Brian, NCPR
Interesting that the accusation of the Tupper Lake Free Press’ ability to distort and slander is cause for much discussion, when the e-mail communication, along with the author’s now public response to it, is a blatant example of the ability to distort and slander.
We should be questioning the former Assistant District Attorney and his “anonymous” friend’s understanding of “off-color” comments. To “condemn prejudice in all forms” seems contradictory, as an educated, trained, experienced person should know that off-color comments actually condone, NOT condemn prejudice. If one truly condemns prejudice, slurs and off color remarks aren’t humorous, they’re offensive.
Clearly the gravity of remark is beyond the level of comprehension that Jack and his “anonymous” supporter are capable of. This inability to comprehend, leads me to wonder about other possible instances where slurs have been used or condoned, by Jack and/or his “anonymous” friend. Perhaps they haven’t been made public, such as this one, or perhaps they are currently public and are not being given enough attention.
Anti-Semitic remark aside, to revel in the knowledge of another’s misfortune is a true testament of character.
While I agree the comments should have been checked out, a denial from the person who made a comment and some sort of backup from a friend of his isn’t proof, in my opinion, that the comment was misinterpreted.
It’s a strange thing to say, and I wonder what he meant by it — that the person who might have used the hot tub was hairy (because Hasidim grow their hair long)? Or did he mean the water might be contaminated because someone who was Jewish used it?
Whoever the subject of the remark, it does seem tasteless.
But is it news? That might be a question that could be asked of the InBox as well as Mr. McClelland.
Finally, though, the joyful tone of the email in the face of another person’s misfortune is really despicable, separate from the hard-to-parse hot tub comment.
Also it was sent at 5:48 pm likely right in the middle of happy hour.
Caligal –
If we learn that Jack Delehanty engaged in a pattern of anti-Semitic or hateful rhetoric, we would obviously report that as relevant to this story. So far we haven’t found that to be true.
Delehanty himself acknowledges being “guilty” of taking pleasure in the Lawson family’s financial struggles. That is an important part of the story.
–Brian, NCPR
Any comment suggesting that one is at risk using the same hot tub as an Hasidic Jew is an anti-semitic slur. No excuses, explanations or rationalizations change that.
A possible lesson from this is that off-color ethnic humor is always dangerous, and unless you are referring to your own ethnic group your comments can easily be mis-interpreted. The issue is whether or not someone is offended, not whether the offense was intentional.
In this case (apparently) no offense was taken (or intended) in the context that the private statement was made, but when the email was made public and placed in a different context it was given a new interpretation.
“Interesting that the accusation of the Tupper Lake Free Press’ ability to distort and slander is cause for much discussion…”
Because people tend to hold newspapers to a higher standard of ethical behavior than ordinary Joes.
The irony is that if the TLFP editor had behaved as a proper journalist, he could easily have verified the email’s authenticity (which the author confirmed to NCPR) and then no one would be talking about the newspaper’s behavior.
Though I guess this is a great illustration of the principle that when someone on “your side” makes an offensive comment, it’s downplayed as “salty language” and criticism of it is derided “political correctness run amok.” But when someone on the “other side” makes an offensive comment, it suddenly becomes an outrageous insult that must be vigorously denounced. Funny how that works…
Yeah but I didn’t know the family was in bankruptcy on their house. That is what is wrong with this country man, rich people with big homes don’t pay their mortgage and they are out building giant developments and moving right along, no big deal, poor people get thrown into the horrible credit risk category and can’t even rent a decent apartment.
I haven’t seen anyone downplaying the offensiveness of the email as “salty language.” Nor have I seen anyone saying the email should not have been checked out by the newspaper. Since the email was authentic, however, I don’t think you can criticize the Free Press on the grounds of not making sure it was. It was authentic. Perhaps Mr. McClelland knew that from the circumstances in which he received it.
Brian Mann’s criticism, I think, was that Mr. McClelland didn’t confirm what Mr. Delehanty meant by his comment about the hot tub. Of course, that’s a hard thing to do, and in my opinion, Brian M’s reporting has not confirmed it either. I do think the tone of Brian M’s piece, and its headline, put undue emphasis on what he sees as Mr. McLelland’s journalistic sins. There seems to be an effort at equivalency here — “it was a really bad email, but calling it anti-Semitic was really bad, too.”
Really? I think you can make a strong case for the email being anti-Semitic, even if you can’t prove who he meant by “The Nearly-Hasidic One.”
If I had to choose to be anyone in this case, I would choose to be Mr. McClelland, who condemned the email, rather than Mr. Delehanty, who wrote it.
Will –
Your post is a complicated, thought-provoking one and I’m on the fly, so I’ll only respond to one bit of it.
What is clearly factually wrong in the TLFP editorial is the repeated suggestion that there were multiple authors of the email, and that the email was in any way connected to a political faction involved in the Big Tupper debate.
Dan McClelland asserts that “authors” contributed to this message and that it reflected the activity of “opponents” of the project. “This is apparently how far the opponents of the project have stooped in their quest to kill the project,” he writes.
I’m not questioning Dan McClelland’s motives. I’m merely pointing out that this was factually inaccurate and that the error could easily have been avoided.
In this case, there was one author writing what he believed was a private email. He was writing to members of his hunting club, many of whom are supporters of the Big Tupper project.
It is debatable whether Delehanty’s comments were offensive and it is certainly reasonable for people to maintain that Susan Lawson was the target of those comments.
There is not, however, any evidence to support the suggestion made in the editorial that the email reflected views of anyone else involved in the political debate.
–Brian, NCPR
Wait, was this a private email? My thinking cap is not on tightly enough this morning, I must be missing something.
Btw, Will, if it was indeed a private, inside joke… then you may not get, nor do you have to, the reference or the humor.
Considering the allegations made in the national press about various political figures on both sides over the past year or two, this stuff is pretty tame.
I think what would bother me most is who leaked the email to the press? If I’m sending an email to someone with an off color joke in it, I’d be real careful who it got sent to. Can’t have someone of Scandinavian descent getting bent over an Ole and Lena joke after all. Someone much not be the friend Delehanty thought.
But, as Mervel said, it was right in the middle of happy hour.
I am in total disbelief. Did you read the email? And you see nothing wrong with it? The tone? The pleasure in someone else’s misfortune? The anti-Semitic comment (whether it was meant for a friend)? It is not about Dan or the TLFP. It is not about who gave up the email. It is about who wrote the email. When you send it out to numerous people you better think before you hit send. Especially when your wife and family name is on it.
Ok, so it was a private email.
How embarrassing for everyone involved – including the people who think they can read private emails and be an authority on their meaning.
I can just about guarantee you this, if any of our private email accounts were opened up to public scrutiny we would all be embarrassed and regretful about a few things. The public is not equipped to properly understand or interpret the things we write privately. They don’t have the private context, they won’t get the references, the inside jokes, the tone… anything.
I’ve read and re-read that email now and while it wasn’t the most mature thing I have ever seen, it wasn’t meant to be. I just don’t see the big deal. Maybe I am thick skinned, or maybe I am just not looking for something to be outraged about (oh the OUTRAGE!!)
It is kind of sad to see such a divided, angry, defensive community just looking for things to go at each other’s throats over.
“3. How is it that Delehanty has lived and worked in the North Country for decades without displaying any anti-Semitic behavior before now?”
“was part of an on-going exchange of off-color ethnic humor among club members.”
Brian, it sounds like you answered your own question.
This is all pretty interesting when I compare it to the reaction to stories about cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed and how Muslims should learn that they are in a free society where we value freedom of speech.
Throw in the apology by the Onion and we are right back in the middle of what is or isn’t allowable. Anti-semitism is out of bounds for offensiveness, cartoons of Muhammet are fine. Got it.
There is no story here, just life in the Adirondacks. All we need to do is go back to ADIRONDACK COUNTRY published by William Chapman White nearly 60 years go. In the chapter “Adirondack Year” he writes about each month. Of March he writes, “March days get into men’s moods. If political scraps have been simmering in the villages, and most villages have them, they boil in March. Neighborhood quarrels, parental arguments, schoolroom spats turn up more frequently….Nothing’s really wrong with politician, family, parent, child, bride, farmer or farm. It’s only March.” It’s February 27, close enough to March for me. So let’s have a little perspective, recognize this late winter dust up for what it is. It’s all happened before, and no doubt it will happen again.
KHL,
You know you are comparing apples and oranges. Cartoons criticizing Israel and lampooning Israelis run in papers across the country. Why does Mohammed deserve a special untouchable place when cartoonists can feel free to lampoon the Bible, the Christian God, Jesus Christ, the Pope, etc.?
The point here was that some people at least felt there was a personal anti-Semitic attack, which would be equally wrong, whether aimed at Jews or Muslims. The email would be equally offensive if it warned to avoid the hot-tub because it had been used by a Muslim, or by the “nearly Mohammad One.”
With all due respect to Brian M., regarding your post about “…whether Delehanty’s comments were offensive…” How can you even question that? When you look at the entire email, it included a copy of the Notice of Pendency, something the authors had to pursue… it is headlined with Lawsons’ name… it mocks the Lawson’s financial challenges… it circles like a buzzard wanting their bed… So, why would anyone think that the other remarks were not related to them? The tone of the email was so upsetting to one of the recipients that they did not make any correlation to another club member, but instead felt it was entirely directed at the Lawson’s. So, they made a copy and provided it to several people in town. This one recipient felt that it was ALL directed at the Lawsons’. For the author to call it an off color joke adds further insult.
For the “friend” who spoke on condition of anonymity, his statements appear to show that they have no problem with such slurs, even when they are made public. And even though the one recipient who provided the email was very upset and apologized, apparently the other recipients have accepted these “common” type of comments as humorous and part of their culture, because no one else in the email chain has apologized to the Lawson’s. You have to wonder how that acceptance carries over into other parts of this persons life. The friend must know that the email author is obsessed with killing the Adirondack Club project, and yet is fine with the overall tone of the email? Either the “friend” does not understand the implication of racial slurs, or understands them all too well. The email was a personal attack on two people that did not deserve it!
Finally, the disingenuous remark by the author that he “condemns prejudice in all its forms,…” Apparently this does not include his own off color jokes. And, he is probably right about the email being used to discredit him. Why shouldn’t it be. He stepped way over the line.
Whoa, and I thought Dan McClelland was reading too deeply into the email.
Everyone should remember that there’s nothing private about the internet, especially e mail. It is not the same as traditional, written communication. If you don’t want the whole world to see or if you think the whole world might not understand, don’t press that button. If you don’t care who sees or understands, go right ahead. Just remember, you can’t take it back.
If you want to go back 60 years, fine. In the early 60s, Birmingham, Alabama’s City Commission closed all public recreational facilities (including municipal swimming pools) rather than integrate them. The rest of that story is well known and that’s why “jokes” based on race weren’t funny then and aren’t funny now.
“Anti-semitism is out of bounds for offensiveness, cartoons of Muhammet are fine.” They are both offensive and they are both allowed under free speech, and in both cases the person doing it is a jerk. But you are free to be a jerk under the constitution.
Also, it sounds like these guys are still on the playground. Grow up boys! “sophisticated and knowledgeable about the ways of public discourse”? I don’t think so.
Jim LaValley = There is a difference between a racial slur and off-color ethnic humor, especially when said in private. If the comment referred to Mrs Lawson, it would be reasonable to assume it was a racial slur. If it referred to Mr. Delahanty’s friend, then it was an off-color joke as long as Mr. Delahanty’s friend wasnt offended. Only Mr. Delahanty knows for sure who he intended the remark to refer to, and only his friend knows whether or not it was ok with him.
As an aside, Im not sure it is legitimate to refer to a woman as hasidic.
I checked – there are women who refer to themselves as hasidic.
The way you take an email like this seems to be based on two things…
1. If you are someone on the other side of the ACR issue and you are looking for something to be upset about.
2. If you are someone who equates off-color humor with racism.
Also, implying that nothing on the internet, “especially email”, is private… is both technologically, and legally incorrect.
This kind of silliness was happening waaaaay before Al Gore supported the creation of the internet. If this guy had typed out, or hand written, this message and sent it to each of his fellow club members it just as easily could have been passed along to a newspaper. Email is not to blame here.
Good luck with your Internet privacy, Dave. There have been more examples of successful hacking than anyone cares to remember. Whatever legalities may apply on a given situation, anything on the Internet is exposed for all to see. That’s a fact.
Will, I am comparing the treatment of offensive speech by the press – not the speech itself.
Moslems consider the depiction of the Prophet to be offensive in the extreme, to a similar degree as I find the hot-tub statement – but you are treating them as if they are in some way different.
Even Brian states: “In our society, anti-Semitism is one of the vilest, most socially unacceptable views that a person can hold.” But in fact the term anti-Semitism is being used to only talk about Jews, never-mind that there are Jews who aren’t Semitic and there are lots of Moslems and Christians who are Semitic.
Also, Israel is a political entity while Mohamet is/was a religious figure. One of the basic tenets of the religion is that no image should be made of him – and it is a part of the religion for a reason. I don’t believe that anyone at the formation of the State of Israel made any objection to portraying Israel in a cartoon.
Be careful or you’ll be there with Hagel having to defend the difference between the Israeli lobby and the Jewish lobby.
I find it strange that our society can be so delicate in its sensibilities that we can’t say anti-Jew. Just say it. It isn’t anti-Semitism it is anti-Jew, or anti-Jewish.
Jew isn’t a dirty word! Maybe Jews need to learn from the Black Power movement. Jew Power (clenched fist)!
There now that we have that out of the way we can sit down with some popcorn and watch Louis CK, or Family Guy, or the Oscars, then polish it all off with a copy of the Onion.
“anything on the Internet is exposed for all to see. That’s a fact.”
Absolutely, demonstrably not.
Look, it is clear you don’t work in a technology field or have a lot of knowledge about how the Internet, networks, encryption or data security actually work… what you are saying is just not technological reality.
This is one of those things people just keep repeating. Maybe you even read it on the Internet, which must make it true! It isn’t.
Do networks get broken into? Sure. Houses get broken into too. Claiming that nothing is safe or private on the Internet because there are hackers who have hacked some networks is a bit like saying that nothing in your home is safe or private because there are burglars who have broken into some homes.
Again, email and the Internet are not to blame here. A human being made a private communication public. That human being could have done this even if it were a handwritten letter.
In one other article I read about this (yes I am an idiot and wasted my time doing that!) there was a comment about the “friend” being Jude o-Christian. Now what ever they mean by that I am not sure. But maybe they are clueless and are trying to say this guy is some kind of Jewish Cristian mix. Maybe that is me. My wife and sons are Jewish and I am a Catholic. But my point being this..
He says in the email – “nearly hassidic” (pretty sure that is misspelled BTW). So maybe that is what he means by the guy being part-Jewish? So maybe that is his crude term for his friend. Nice. But it would back the guys story.
Has anyone ever seen this weird term as something that a Jew is referred to?
But in the end bad is bad. These boys should be ashamed of themselves.
Dave,
I’m not sure what your point is and I really don’t wish to argue with someone who knows as much as you think you do but I will tell you that anyone who has spent any time at all in the business world knows that only someone with a career death wish would trust an on line system to transmit or record any offensive, damaging or overly sensitive information. That’s like leaving your keys in your car.
Paul, the interesting thing about the uses of language (Judeo-Christian as an apparent reference to being Jewish, and hassidic/hasidic which is a specific sect) is that a former assistant district attorney is the one who wrote them. I have to assume that this is a person who has a law degree and passed the Bar exam. Was he so sloppy in his use of language in his job?
I think it is actually kind of sad to have small community descend to this level of pettines, reading personal emails etc as if this guy is a national politician or something, all over a stupid plan which will likely never happen, I sm sure Foxman won’t lose any sleep about it after he moves on