Publisher Calls Documentation Valid, Stands Behind Book on Drugs

James Mills, author of “The Underground Empire,” declined a written request by The Times for an interview to discuss The Times’ findings.

Officials of Doubleday & Co., his publisher, also declined to be interviewed. However, the president of its publishing division, Richard Malina, issued the following statement:

“Doubleday stands behind ‘The Underground Empire.’ Prior to its publication we reviewed carefully with Mr. Mills his research and documentation and found it overwhelming, extending far beyond the information contained in the book.”

Review by Attorney

Doubleday attorney Heather Kilpatrick earlier told The Times that she flew to Mills’ home in France where “I personally reviewed all of Mills’ research and substantiations for the statements he makes in the book.”

Kilpatrick said she examined Mills’ notes and listened to tape recordings. She said she did not attempt to contact any of those named in the book to check the accuracy of Mills’ work.

The Times did interview Mills in June, when he met seven Times editors and reporters at a luncheon arranged by Jack Miles, book editor of The Times, to discuss the book.

At the luncheon, Mills, 54, a former Life magazine staff member who has written five novels and three nonfiction books, acknowledged that he made no attempt to interview many of the people he writes about in “The Underground Empire.”

As a journalist, Mills asserted, he is under no obligation to seek comment from people he writes about negatively, even when he repeats speculations that these individuals committed felonies. He said that had he done so, the book would have been so long that no publisher would print it.

”. . . The reason you talk to the individual,” Mills explained, “is to obtain corroboration or to obtain certitude in your own mind, that what you are saying is true. If you are confident that what you are saying is true, it might not always be necessary to call those individuals.”

Mills also said that “it was impossible to do that (give those he writes about negatively a chance to tell their side of the story) and still write a book that anybody would publish.”

Seeking comment from all sides to a controversy, especially when reputations are at stake, is perhaps the most universally accepted standard in modern American journalism.

Ben H. Bagdikian, dean of the graduate school of journalism at the University of California and a widely known press critic, said offering individuals and institutions a chance to comment on damaging statements about them before publication is good practice.

“If there is something damaging to the subject--especially if it has not been published before and therefore the subject has not had a chance to respond--then it is good practice among news organizations, both for reasons of fairness and to avoid libel actions, to give the other side a chance to comment,” Bagdikian said, adding that “fairness is fairness no matter what the medium is.”

The issue of offering an opportunity to comment to those written about negatively in “The Underground Empire” arose when Mills was asked about statements in his book concerning Barry Tarlow, a Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer.

“The Underground Empire” quotes several sources as suggesting that Tarlow hid $60 million in proceeds from criminal activity for a $6 million fee and financed drug deals. Tarlow categorically denied committing any criminal act or doing anything remotely similar to the activities described in the book.

Also, Tarlow said that because the book names him in a passage on Page 819, he believes it implicates him “in a murder-for-hire plot” against Michael J. Decker. “That is an outrageous lie,” he said. A prosecutor said the incident described in the book did not occur nor did anything remotely similar.

Quoted Material

Another example of what Mills wrote about Tarlow appears on Page 922 of “The Underground Empire” where the author quotes himself and Rich Gorman, a federal drug agent who is one of the book’s heroes:

“Where is Barry Tarlow now?” (Mills asked).

“He’s still in Beverly Hills.”

“He was never indicted?”

“Couldn’t get that good a thread of evidence against him. There were a lot of statements by a lot of people about what his involvement was, but nothing that you could pin him down with, nothing that anybody could ever testify to . . . He was supposed to be manipulating the money . . . supposed to be a financial backer for a lot of the drug deals. Those were statements by informants, things they had heard second hand. But you’re not going to convict an attorney on that, especially not somebody like Barry Tarlow. They had never seen Barry Tarlow hand Sicilia (a drug dealer) money and say invest this in drugs. . . .

“Unfortunately, Barry Tarlow’s got a good reputation in the legal profession and for some reasons attorneys aren’t inclined to go after attorneys. They’re afraid to take him on.”

During the luncheon with Times editors and reporters, after Mills re-read this passage, he said “I do not suggest he’s (Tarlow) a drug dealer.”

A Times reporter asked Mills, “Did you ever pick up the phone, and call Mr. Tarlow?”

“Certainly not,” Mills said.

Mills said he did not feel it was necessary to offer Tarlow a chance to comment “because I had heard other allegations against Barry Tarlow.”

Asked whether he had an obligation to call other individuals he writes about negatively, Mills said he did not have enough time or space to include their sides.

Mills said that his manuscript “was reduced by a thousand pages. I was under a lot of, well, my own personal desire was, and I was under a certain amount of pressure from the publisher, to reduce the length of the book and not only that but to reduce the complexity of it, to reduce the number of names, the number of details, the number of dates, etc. etc.”

He also said:

“The book is 1,165 pages. There are hundreds of people in it, there are thousands of places in it. There are any numbers of statements in the book that you could pick out and say, ‘Did you ever call these people and ask them?’ and I would have to say, ‘No, I didn’t.’

“If I had, we wouldn’t be sitting here today. This book would be published 10 years from now, and it would probably be about 3,000 pages long. . . ,” Mills said.

Mills added that he is “absolutely confident” that his book “could not have any unfairness in it.”

At the close of the June interview, Mills repeatedly sought assurances that before publishing a story The Times would give him opportunity to comment. Mills emphasized that not to give him an opportunity to tell his side of the story would be “unfair.”