There's an 11,000-word piece on politically active L.A. mogul Haim Saban coming in Monday's New Yorker by writer Connie Bruck, but the best story might be in what has gone on behind the scenes. The Wrap's Sharon Waxman says the lawyer battles and editing went right up to Friday's drop-dead deadline. "According to two people close to the process, Saban’s former tax lawyer Matthew Krane has provided anecdotes to Bruck, including one suggesting that Saban used political influence to help complete his sale of the Fox Family Channel to the Walt Disney Company for $5.3 billion in October 2001," Waxman says. "But Saban's lawyers sent a letter warning the New Yorker of their intention to take action if the piece has inaccuracies or is 'disparaging' of the mogul, according to one person close to the process."
But the question is: Did Saban's lawyers succeed in squeezing all the juicy stuff out of the piece? And was there really juicy stuff to be had?
The New Yorker fact-checking process is legendary, but Saban was "pissed off" at the reporter, believing her to be credulous of Krane's accusations, according to one person knowledgeable about the process.
Krane is a felon who pleaded guilty to tax evasion and tax fraud and is out on bail while he cooperates with the federal government over a tax fraud case, Waxman writes — she adds that Saban and magazine editor David Remnick spoke before the piece went to bed.