I have spoken to a representative of Wells Fargo this morning, who is very concerned that my blog of yesterday is inaccurate. She says that the WF official at the event did have to leave for a meeting with two Senators for which he was running late, and that he was not trying to avoid answering questions. He himself told me he was running late, gave me his card to schedule and interview at a later date, and so I walked away.
That would have been fine, and I wouldn't have written anything, save my perception of the events after that: while I was talking to another person at the event, I saw that same WF official speaking to a print reporter. I turned the camera back on him, and at that moment, a person with him took his arm and said we've got to go. I felt that he was standing with this other reporter far longer than he did with me, and that only when the camera light went on, did he get pulled away.
The folks at Wells Fargo say this is an unfair assessment, and I would like to give them their say. They say he was not giving an interview, was trying to be polite to get out of the situation quickly to make his appointment, and that I should not have painted the scene that he was running away from my camera. We disagree on the events, and there's no way around that, but I think it's important for readers to hear where Wells Fargo is coming from.
I would still like to interview the president of Wells Fargo, especially given thenew foreclosure numbers out today, but I realize there is now a trust issue on their side. While blogs offer background color and opinions of events, my reporting is fair, accurate and unbiased. Wells Fargo has every right to disagree with perceptions. I would like to talk about the issues.
Questions? Comments? RealtyCheck@cnbc.com