Criticize him and he’ll ban you from his service

Criticize him and he’ll send you scathing e-mails (although he talks about “Karma” all the time).

Start a competing service and he’ll send you scathing e-mails to you and everyone he knows with veiled and completely unveiled threats.

Criticize him and he’ll have his “henchman” post all over your blog (including people on his payroll)

He is a jerk, a top-shelf jerk not only from my personal accounts but from MANY others.

People in the industry are scared to speak bad about him for the above reasons, but there have been a “brave few” and I commend them.

He hit a BIG winner in HARO and kudos on that, but now that he has gained power, he abuses it (like the above calling out).

His karma is going to come (and the funny part is he thinks he has “good” karma).

and doesn’t matter how you cut it “haro subscriber” with your pseudo intellectual and grammatical or style arguments, Shankman was wrong. how much did he pay you to write that trash above or maybe you gave him a gift so that he could mention you on his daily newsletter…

I took out the name of the person Peter named:

“So… Here’s my thinking. Tell me if I’m crazy or not. Y’all know that HARO puts together reporters searching for sources. And y’all know that occasionally, some people will try to take advantage of the list, and use it for evil purposes, right?

So it makes sense that when they try that, they’re sort of “gambling,” right? So if I catch them, like I did with Scott at (website deleted) and then I tell everyone that his “media outlet” is nothing more than him trying to scam and make money, and isn’t really a media outlet at all, then the “he’s evil, don’t do business with him” is what he gets for the gamble, right? Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Nature of the beast, right? Looks like Scott lost. Stay away from anything having to do with Scott or his lame attempt to get people to give him information for free.”

This is really low. If Peter had any scruples, he would discuss the matter with Scott rather than trying to destroy him and his business and i still don’t know what this guy Scott did. Shame on you Peter.

2. How dare you assume that anyone would KNOW the race of the person emailing reporters? Unless that person included a photo, it would be incredibly stereotypical — and RACIST — for this website to presume the ethnic background of the writer based solely on the person’s name or writing style.

3. Perhaps — and this is most important — you might look at the not-so-subtle constructs of your OWN offensive language.

a. Paragraph 2: “fairy tales.” In this day and age, casting aspersion on gays and lesbians is no longer trendy. Perhaps you should reconsider your choice to label something fictional as something related to a “fairy.”

b. Paragraph 4: “some sort of cult.” Considering the hundreds of people who died in Waco or at the hands of Jim Jones’ “Kool-Aid cult,” you might want to have a little more sensitivity than to make a joke at the expense of the deaths of these innocent people.

c. Paragraph 4: “an egregrious error.” The etymology of the word “egregious” is from the Latin, meaning “to rise above the herd or flock.” Are you calling your readers nothing but sheep or animals, without any consciousness of their own?

d. Paragraph 4: “PR person happens to be black.” I believe the proper term is “African-American,” so as to not reduce a person’s identity to the color of his/her skin.

e. Paragraph 5: “the network rightly suspended her.” Surely you meant to write “correctly,” instead of “rightly.” This nation currently is torn apart as never before, with people falling into polarized “red” vs. “blue” lines, Democrats vs. Republicans, etc. Are you trying to indoctrinate your readers with right-wing politics through the use of this phrase? Why “rightly” instead of “justly?” The proselytizing of a right-wing agenda clearly has no place in this context, so why include it?