Tag Archives: crime

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Derides the ‘Heated’ and ‘Ugly’ Rhetoric from Those Who Oppose Mosque

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Wednesday complained about “ugly” comments arising from the debate over the Ground Zero mosque. She also spun the founder and chief proponent of the construction as a moderate, “despite some criticism of the Imam from the right.” [MP3 audio here .] After fellow MSNBC anchor Chuck Todd asserted that the President felt like he had to speak out because “the debate was getting so loud,” Mitchell editorialized, ” Getting loud, heated, ugly and inaccurate, in fact. ” She then proceeded to tout Feisal Abdul Rauf to the Washington Post’s David Ignatius. Mitchell enthused, “And despite some criticism of the Imam from the right, it turns out that Feisal Abdul Rauf has been an unofficial U.S. ambassador to the Muslim world in addition to promoting peace and religious tolerance in Manhattan.” At no time did she offer her viewers any hint that Abdul Rauf has made some controversial assertions. These include making comments that seem supportive of Sharia law in the United States, refusing to condemn Hamas and referring to the United States as an “accessory” to 9/11. Instead, she touted, “And Walter Isaacson, who we both know well from the head of the Aspen Institute, was quoted as saying, ‘He’s consistently denounced radical Islam and terrorism and promoted a moderate and tolerant Islam.'” However, this doesn’t square with Abdul Rauf’s September 30, 2001 appearance on 60 Minutes where this exchange occurred: ED BRADLEY: Are — are — are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened? IMAM ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. BRADLEY: OK. You say that we’re an accessory? ABDUL RAUF: Yes. BRADLEY: How? ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA. Given Mitchell’s complaints about “inaccurate” statements in the Ground Zero debate, her above quote is sloppy at best. A transcript of the August 18 segment, which aired at 1:18pm EDT, follows: ANDREA MITCHELL: And when they speak privately to you Chuck, are they annoyed with Harry Reid for escalating this as a political matter? CHUCK TODD: You know, they have not been critical of anybody, even privately, on how they’ve reacted to this because, frankly, they understand that they created a bit of a political problem for everybody else. I’ve talked to other Democrats outside the White House who believe that the Harry Reid could have handled this differently, who think that maybe Harry Reid invited holding up more opportunities for Republicans to put other Democrats in a position to have to come out with a statement about this, have to deal with this in their own races, because here’s a guy who, basically, felt the need to respond to his opponent in Nevada, to respond to Sharron Angle. So if he can respond, then, of course, why can’t anybody else who is running for re-election in 2010 respond to their Republican opponent in their district or state? So I think that is where the annoyance I’ve heard. I have not heard it from the White House because the White House gets it and the President himself said they read polls and know that they put members of their own party in an awkward position. But, this is a case where they feel like, where the President himself felt like he had to speak out on this, because, frankly, the debate was getting so loud and heated and, maybe, unproductive. MITCHELL: Getting loud, heated, ugly and inaccurate, in fact. And we’re going to set the record straight on some of that coming up. … MITCHELL: We are now learning more, indeed, about the man behind the proposed Islamic center. And despite some criticism of the Imam from the right , it turns out that Feisal Abdul Rauf has been an unofficial U.S. ambassador to the Muslim world in addition to promoting peace and religious tolerance in Manhattan. Here with me now, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. Uh, David, you’ve been looking at this from removed- and also from inside the White House and inside the State Department. And it’s extraordinary. This is a man who traveled with- to Doha in 2006 at the worst time in the Iraq war with Karen Hughes from the Bush State Department as an envoy, an unofficial envoy, spoke out after 9/11 in Manhattan. DAVID IGNATIUS: Andrea, from everything that we can tell about him, he is almost a model of what you want as a moderate Islamic cleric, with credibility among Muslims to be sure, who is prepared to speak out to the United States. I mean, if you were going to design, as a thought experiment, a way to pull people away from al Qaeda and it would be hard to think of somebody more powerful than this who says that the 9/11 attacks were wrong . Working with the United States is right. Speaking out against a violence is an obligation for Muslims. If we’re ever going to get out of this mess, if we’re going to avoid a war with Muslims around the world, which we all deeply want to do, this is the kind of ally we need and the attacks on him, I have to admit, I don’t understand some of them. MITCHELL: And Walter Isaacson, who we both know well from the head of the Aspen Institute, was quoted as saying, “He’s consistently denounced radical Islam and terrorism and promoted a moderate and tolerant Islam. That’s why I find it a shame that his good work is being undermined by this inflamed dispute. He’s the type of leader to be celebrating in America and not undermining.” And this at a critical time. Is it your sense, and I know you had a meeting at the White House on the national security meeting a week or so ago and were at the State Department involved with Hillary Clinton. So, your sense from the President and his comments that he is trying to reach out because of what is coming up in the Muslim world? He’s got in the balance Israeli and Pakistani negotiations just on a tipping point trying to get something going for the first week in September before he has to go to the UN for the annual speech, the third week in September. This is a very critical moment. IGNATIUS: My sense, Andrea, with the President ten days ago, and I have to stress this was before his intervention at the Ground Zero mosque was that he wants to reanimate these themes that are prominent in his presidency, both notably in his Cairo speech, that he’s trying to reach out to the Muslim world and make progress of his very difficult issues of Israeli/Palestinian negotiations, that he is signaling a willingness, indeed a desire to reopen the negotiations with Iran about the nuclear program. These are themes that the President was really hitting hard and I think it’s- but in the case of Iran, it’s a real last attempt before we get on an inexorable clock with Iran heading towards nuclear weapons capability, see some other way to go.

More:
MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Derides the ‘Heated’ and ‘Ugly’ Rhetoric from Those Who Oppose Mosque

Lindsay Lohan Offered $1 Million For First Post-Jail Interview

Actress has reportedly not yet accepted offer from OK! magazine. By Eric Ditzian Lindsay Lohan Photo: Stephen Shugerman/Getty Images If anyone was wondering how Lindsay Lohan would make a living after her stay in jail and in-patient rehab, we now have our answer. The 24-year-old actress, who hasn’t headlined a theatrical release since 2007, is set to net a lucrative payday for her first post-sentence interview. OK! magazine has offered Lohan $1 million for the interview, according to The Hollywood Reporter . Lohan has reportedly not yet agreed to the deal — she’s still receiving treatment at a rehab facility run by UCLA Medical Center — but she will likely be released well before completing the court-ordered 90-day treatment plan, instead entering an out-patient program. Thus we might be hearing from Lohan — and the actress might be cashing a hefty paycheck — sooner than previously expected. Lohan, of course, won’t be the first celebrity to be offered a big payoff following a personal scandal or tragedy. In 2007, after serving a short jail stint, Paris Hilton was reportedly offered as much as $1 million from NBC for her first post-jail interview before that deal fell through and she appeared on “Larry King Live,” reportedly without payment. NBC also reportedly paid $2 million for an interview with Prince William and Prince Harry and the American rights to broadcast a concert in honor of the late Diana, Princess of Wales. Whichever outlet ultimately lands the Lohan interview, it should expect to pony up some serious cash, as the actress’ professional opportunities are limited at this point. She was fired from “The Other Side” in April, with the film’s director, David Michaels, saying that “producers of the movie have reported that financiers have been resistant to finance the movie with Lindsay in the lead role.” He added that Lohan was simply “not bankable.” She does have a small role in Robert Rodriguez’s “Machete,” but it’s not clear she’ll be free to promote the film. Meanwhile, the filmmakers behind “Inferno,” a biopic in which Lohan is set to star as 1970s porn star Linda Lovelace , remain committed to the actress, though the indie flick will hardly deliver a significant payday. In addition to the interview paycheck, THR reports that Lohan could attract appearance fees in New York and Los Angeles that range anywhere from $25,000 to $100,000. Yet it remains to be seen whether Lohan can make the necessary personal and professional changes to stay out of legal trouble in the future, especially as she heads back into the media spotlight so soon after jail and rehab. “She can take this and she can learn from it and it becomes a cathartic event in her life,” Howard Bragman, founder of publicity firm Fifteen Minutes, told MTV News. “The one thing we haven’t heard from Lindsay is ‘I’m sorry, I have a problem, I’m going to resolve it.’ She doesn’t have PR problems, she has life problems. You can’t fix your problems until you admit you have them. I think she needs a lot of therapy. She needs to let her career be second and her life be first.” Related Videos Lindsay Lohan: Crime And Punishment Related Photos Lindsay Lohan’s ‘Inferno’ Photo Shoot Lindsay Lohan Goes To Court The Highs And Lows Of Lindsay Lohan Related Artists Lindsay Lohan

Read the original post:
Lindsay Lohan Offered $1 Million For First Post-Jail Interview

Some Media Tag Serial Stabber as ‘Israeli National,’ Others See ‘Israeli Arab’ or ‘Palestinian Christian’

When reporting on the nationality of a criminal from another country, it normally would be considered unnecessary or even uncalled for to take the extra step of explicitly identifying the suspect’s ethnicity or religious affiliation as well. But, given that Israelis, the vast majority of whom are Jewish, often face sharp criticism and negative press reaction over conflicts with their Arab neighbors – inflaming anti-Semitic sentiment – if an Israeli citizen who is non-Jewish is implicated in a violent crime, informing viewers that he is non-Jewish would seem to be in order. But so far in the media coverage of serial stabber Elias Abuelazam’s arrest, some major news shows on both broadcast and news networks have avoided explicitly informing viewers that he is not a Jewish Israeli, while others have been more upfront with viewers on the subject. CNN’s The Situation Room, the NBC Nightly News, FNC’s Fox and Friends, and CBS’s The Early Show all directly relayed to viewers at least once that Abuelazam is an Israeli Arab. But ABC’s World News, the CBS Evening News, FNC’s Fox Report, ABC’s Good Morning America, CNN’s American Morning and NBC’s Today show have all avoided such a direct identification of ethnicity, although Saturday’s Good Morning America did note that his mother had spoken Arabic in an interview. On Thursday’s World News, ABC correspondent Steve Osunsami described the serial killer simply as an “Israeli national,” and on Friday’s Good Morning America, ABC correspondent Jeremy Hubbard recounted that he was arrested “just as he was about to board a flight to his native Israel.” On Saturday’s Good Morning America, Osunsami again referred to him as an “Israeli national,” but later in the report indirectly conveyed his ethnicity by noting that Abuelazam’s mother in Israel had spoken Arabic in an interview. On Thursday’s CBS Evening News, correspondent Elaine Quijano described him as an “Israeli national.” On Friday’s The Early Show, the initial report on Abuelazam did not mention ethnicity as Quijano reported during the 7:00 a.m. hour that, when he was arrested, Abuelazam was “trying to fly to Israel.” But during a news brief just after 8:00 a.m., Jeff Glor described him as an “Israeli Arab.” On Friday’s CBS Evening News, guest anchor Erica Hill referred to Abuelazam’s “native Israel,” while correspondent Quijano again tagged him as an “Israeli national.” On Thursday’s NBC Nightly News, correspondent Pete Williams not only informed viewers that Abuelazam is not Jewish, but, for those who might be worried that being identified as an Arab might implicate Muslims, the NBC correspondent also relayed to viewers that Abuelazam is non-Muslim as Williams referred to him as “an Israeli man, Elias Abuelazam, a Palestinian Christian.” But the Today show did not take Williams’s approach. On Friday’s Today, the story was included in two news briefs, during one of which NBC’s Juju Chang mentioned that he was trying to fly to Israel. Saturday’s Today show included a full report, with co-host Amy Robach tagging him as “a 33-year-old Israeli national,” while correspondent Ron Mott identified him as “an Israeli citizen.” On Thursday’s The Situation Room, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer identified Abuelazam as an “Israeli Arab” as he plugged the story, and, after a report by correspondent Jeanne Meserve that recounted the crime spree and the serial killer’s arrest, correspondent Paula Hancocks elaborated on his background in Israel, describing him as an “Israeli Arab,” and she, similar NBC’s Pete Williams, noted that he is from a “Christian family.” On Friday’s The Situation Room, correspondent Susan Candiotti did not mention ethnicity, but relayed that “his family in Israel is a very well-respected member of a Christian organization.” But Friday’s American Morning did not take the same approach as The Situation Room, as neither his ethnicity nor his religion was ever mentioned when CNN’s Meserve appeared at the top of each of the show’s three hours, referring to him as an “Israeli citizen” each time. On Thursday’s Fox Report, anchor Shepard Smith described him as a “33-year-old Israeli citizen.” On Friday’s Fox and Friends, FNC co-anchor Gretchen Carlson twice read a brief item on his arrest, referring to him as an “Israeli citizen,” but, during the 8:00 a.m. hour, FNC’s Geraldo Rivera appeared to discuss the matter in more detail and described him as “an Israeli Arab living here on a green card legally,” and later wondered why an Israeli Arab would feel motivated to target African-American victims. On Friday’s Fox Report, anchor Smith referred to “his native Israel,” and on Saturday’s Fox Report, anchor Julie Banderas referred to him as an “Israeli man.”

See the original post:
Some Media Tag Serial Stabber as ‘Israeli National,’ Others See ‘Israeli Arab’ or ‘Palestinian Christian’

Lindsay Lohan Judge Removes Herself From Case

Marsha Revel’s move comes amid allegations of improper practices. By Jayson Rodriguez Lindsay Lohan appears in court (file) Photo: Pool/ Getty Images The Beverly Hills, California, judge who presided over Lindsay Lohan’s recent probation-violation case has removed herself from further proceedings involving the actress after allegations of improper practices. According to TMZ , Judge Marsha Revel contacted various medical experts and participants in Lohan’s case without notifying the former Disney star’s lawyer or the district attorney’s office. A source in the D.A.’s office reportedly told TMZ that Revel stepped down from the case in lieu of the prosecution’s impending request to have her removed. The move is notable because the judge made headlines when she went against the recommendation of experts in Lohan’s case and ordered the troubled star to a different rehab facility after she completed her prison term . Lohan was slated to check into the Morningside Recovery treatment center, however, Revel changed the location, ultimately selecting the UCLA Medical Center instead. Reports suggested Revel was concerned drugs could be attained by Lohan at the recommended treatment center. Sources told TMZ that Lohan’s legal team and prosecutors met Friday to discuss their issues with Revel. Among the complaints aired during the conversation was that the judge contacted representatives at Morningside Recovery on two occasions without properly disclosing her actions. Revel also allegedly met with Robert Shapiro, the attorney Lohan briefly hired after her lawyer in the case quit. The judge, TMZ reported, failed to notify the prosecution of the Shapiro meeting in her chambers. Revel was particularly harsh with Lohan during the troubled actress’ sentencing , scolding her after she pleaded for leniency. “It’s like someone who cheats but doesn’t think it’s cheating if they don’t get caught,” the judge said. Related Videos Lindsay Lohan: Crime And Punishment Related Photos Lindsay Lohan Goes To Court The Highs And Lows Of Lindsay Lohan Related Artists Lindsay Lohan

Read more:
Lindsay Lohan Judge Removes Herself From Case

The Strange Case of Charles ‘Paulson Put a Gun to All Their Heads’ Gasparino

Earlier today, NB’s Lachlan Markey covered Bill O’Reilly’s interview with the Fox Business Channel’s Charles Gasparino. In that interview, Gasparino confirmed what the New York Post reported in April of last year, namely that  “GE Execs Encouraged CNBC Staff to Go Easy on Obama.” The suits at GE, including Chairman Jeff Inmelt, had a clear motivation for encouraging their reporters to lighten up, namely that “General Electric at the time was hoping to profit handsomely from policies that would benefit a few companies, including GE, at the expense of the majority of the economy”– specifically cap and trade. But speaking of motivation: What about former CNBCer Gasparino’s? The easy answer would be that sometime in the past two years he has seen the light and realizes his past reporting at CNBC was lacking in fairness and balance. Despite his move to Fox, there’s reason to doubt that. In October 2008, Gasparino and CNBC’s Dylan Ratigan smirked their way through their report on what has turned out in retrospect to have been the event that marked the official beginning of Washington’s financial tyranny (“arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority”) over the banking system. That tyranny has largely been codified into law in the recently passed and laughably misnamed “Financial Services Reform” legislation. On October 14, 2008, less than two weeks after Congress passed legislation creating the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) with the supposed intent of using the money to buy up specific “toxic assets,” mostly subprime mortgages, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson radically shifted course, forcing the nation’s largest banks to take TARP money directly (i.e., to accept government “investment”) regardless of whether they wanted it or believe they needed it. What follows is a transcript containing most of the early portion of what Ratigan and Gasparino reported before going to other talking heads for their comments (video is still here at CNBC, and must be seen to fully appreciate the conversation’s smarmy arrogance, especially with Gasparino; bolds are mine): Ratigan: Well we all know that obscene amounts of risk (were) taken inside of the banking system, leaving some banks crippled, some banks frozen, and other banks with huge opportunities. Uh, many of the banks didn’t want to be tainted with the government bailout funds because they didn’t want to be mistaken for a fool when they actually felt that they were the smart one that didn’t do it. Well Hank Paulson said “The heck with that.” He stuck all of them with some of the bailout money. And he said “Listen, we’re going to reset the clock here and move forward.” Charlie, how are the banks that felt they basically didn’t commit the crime, as it were, of excess or reckless risk, uh, respond to the fact that even they will be stuck with this capital? Charlie Gasparino: Well y’know they were all kind of stupid to some extent ….. ….. the Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson put all these egos in the room, and basically put guns to their heads, forcing them to take the money to bolster the banking system. Some of the firms say they didn’t want the cash, but it’s pretty clear that all of them did need to take the cash, given the continued upheaval in the banking system that crushed shares last week of Morgan as well as Goldman Sachs and just about everybody else. So this is essentially, uh, Dylan, a case where, y’know, you can deny you have any problems. Even the best-capitalized banks have problems. They own this stuff. And Paulson at one point said, “Listen, if you don’t want it, it doesn’t matter, gun to your head, you gotta take it.” Ratigan: Yeah, whether you think you’re sick or not, you’re taking the medicine. Gasparino: Because you’re sick anyway. Ratigan: Exactly. Part of my reax at the time: It was very unsettling to see the two CNBC reporters basically smile and smirk their way through the opening segment of the clip, with what I saw as an air of insufferable “we know it all” arrogance. … This “bailout” was originally advertised as being targeted towards troubled loan situations, principally mortgages. Instead, Paulson, Bernanke, and Bush have turned it into a de facto, no good deed goes unpunished (i.e., responsible lending) tool for partial nationalization. How many Congresspersons, or presidential candidates, thought this was what they were voting for, or that this is what the people wanted? Commenter dscott’s reax at the time : Something is up because this is not how a government official acts in a Democracy. “Something” was up all right. We should never forget that the congressmen and senators from both parties, including each party’s presidential candidate, voted TARP into existence despite the intense opposition of the vast majority of Americans, thereby allowing a loophole-laden law to open the door to what has since transpired. Then, less than two weeks later, virtually everyone just stood around while tyranny took its first sweeping steps. Charles Gasparino thought it was sort of funny at the time, as if the financial system’s private players were getting a richly deserved comeuppance. That attitude is consistent with the theme of his most recent book, and of the one that will be released shortly. In November of last year, Gasparino’s ” The Sellout ” was subtitled “How Three Decades of Wall Street Greed and Government Mismanagement Destroyed the Global Financial System.” Given what we have learned about the frauds by design known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the two years since they went into government conservatorship, it’s more than a little odd that he would mention Wall Street first. Gasparino is releasing a book in October whose title is, “Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street.” The book’s tagline: “A top reporter exposes the deep ties between the Obama administration and the big banks that are bankrupting our country.” I’m sure there’s no shortage of material. But fundamentally, Charles, how could it be that Wall Street perpetrated this mess with just a bit of cooperation from and co-opting of Uncle Sam, when it’s Fan and Fred who led the way in compromising prudent lending standards, and it’s Fan and Fred who lied about the underlying quality of their securitized mortgages for about 15 years to the tune of hundreds of billions and perhaps trillions of dollars, doing damage that Wall Street couldn’t hope to do even at its most malicious? Someone –maybe Bill O’Reilly — should ask Gasparino if he still thinks Wall Street is the primary culprit. He clearly did at crunch time in October 2008. Cross-posted in longer form at BizzyBlog.com .  

Read the original here:
The Strange Case of Charles ‘Paulson Put a Gun to All Their Heads’ Gasparino

Kanye West to Perform at MTV VMAs

Kanye West will be returning to the scene of the crime, or at least the scene of one of the biggest jackass moves in award show history. Imma let you finish! A year after infamously interrupting Taylor Swift’s speech on stage, Kanye West is set to return to the MTV Video Music Awards on Sunday, September 12. The Grammy-winning rapper’s fifth studio album is expected to drop this fall. He debuted a video “painting” for the first single, ” Power ,” on MTV last week. A follow-up single is also expected to be released by West in the next couple of weeks, and that’s not nearly all from the talented, egomaniac artist. Kanye Tweeted yesterday: “More music … I’m bout to drop a bunch of sh!t this yea … surprise performances … guest verses … living in the studio.” You’ve been warned, award winners.

Read the rest here:
Kanye West to Perform at MTV VMAs

JetBlue Flight Attendant Steven Slater Is a Free Man [Heroes]

Steven Slater —the JetBlue flight attendant who walked off the job via inflatable slide and was arrested by the cops yesterday mid-embrace with his boyfriend —is a free man tonight after coming up with his $2,500 bail. More

Meet the Marauding Drag Queen Who Bit Off Someone’s Ear [Crime]

Drag queen Jane Lane is well known on the gay club scene for his outrageous clothes and oversized personality. On Sunday, he became known to the NYPD when he bit off someone’s ear and was arrested. Details and photos below. More

James Cameron Says Government Ignored His BP Oil Spill Advice

‘The source of the report was contaminated in their minds because there was a Hollywood guy involved,’ he says. By Mawuse Ziegbe, with reporting by Josh Horowitz James Cameron Photo: Jason Merritt/ Getty Images Although he’s known for staging elaborate film productions versus resolving massive environmental crises, James Cameron has been vocal about fixing the BP oil spill that has ravaged the Gulf Coast. The “Avatar” filmmaker even assembled a team of experts in the field to figure out how to fix the largest oil spill in U.S. history. However, Cameron said that when it came to reviewing the strategy developed by his collective of engineers and scientists, government officials failed to take the plan seriously. “We worked [on] the problem for a couple of weeks … and submitted a 25-page report to the Department of Energy and … to the [U.S.] Coast Guard that said what to do,” Cameron told MTV News. “It was promptly ignored by everyone and guess what? At the end of the day, they did exactly what we recommended. I’m not saying they did it because we recommended it. I think they did it because it was the right thing to do. But they basically did exactly what we said should be done.” Cameron said he was motivated to assist the cleanup effort because he felt analysts outside of the oil giant should have a say. “If you’re relying on BP for imagery, you’re basically relying on the criminal’s video of the crime scene,” he asserted. Cameron maintained that officials ignored the report because of his status as an entertainment figure. “I think because BP was giving them a line of sh– every single day and they were believing it. I also think it’s because the source of the report was contaminated in their minds because there was a Hollywood guy involved,” Cameron said. “[Officials] tend to shy away from media if they can’t control it, which completely obviated the valuable contribution of the other 23 people on the team, who are all the cr

Establishment Press Ignores Counterpunch Accusations That Sherrods Mistreated Workers at New Communities

What follows was eminently predictable, but noting it is nonetheless necessary. Shirley Sherrod, and to a lesser extent her husband Charles, were media celebrities for a while in late July. Readers might have noticed their near absence from establishment media news reports during the past seven days. It would be easy to think that this has occurred because the story played itself out, with nothing newsworthy to add. That stopped being true on Monday, August 2, when a column by Ron Wilkins (“The Other Side of Shirley Sherrod”) appeared in the leftist alternative publication Counterpunch . Wilkins is currently a professor in the Department of Africana Studies (not misspelled) at Cal State University. He claims in the final sentence of his column that he is knowledgeable concerning what he is writing because “I was one of those workers at NCI.” “NCI” is New Communities, Inc., described at a RuralDevelopment.org link as “the land trust that Shirley and Charles Sherrod established, with other black farm families in the 1960’s.” Here’s part of what Wilkins alleges (excerpted items are not in the same order as they originally appeared; out of order verbiage is identified): Imagine farm workers doing back breaking labor in the sweltering sun, sprayed with pesticides and paid less than minimum wage. Imagine the United Farm Workers called in to defend these laborers against such exploitation by management. Now imagine that the farm workers are black children and adults and that the managers are Shirley Sherrod, her husband Rev. Charles Sherrod, and a host of others. But it’s no illusion; this is fact. Shirley Sherrod was New Communities Inc. store manager during the 1970s. As such, Mrs. Sherrod was a key member of the NCI administrative team, which exploited and abused the workforce in the field. The 6,000 acre New Communities Inc. in Lee County promoted itself during the latter part of the 1960s and throughout the 70s as a land trust committed to improving the lives of the rural black poor. Underneath this facade, the young and old worked long hours with few breaks, the pay averaged sixty-seven cents an hour, fieldwork behind equipment spraying pesticides was commonplace and workers expressing dissatisfaction were fired without recourse. Worker protest at New Communities eventually garnered some assistance from the United Farm Workers Union in nearby Florida in the person of one of its most formidable organizers, black State Director, the late Mack Lyons. … Fearful of both UFW efforts to unionize NCI’s labor force and scrutiny by the Georgia State Wage and Hour Division, the Sherrods and NCI management hastily issued checks in varying amounts to strikers to makeup ostensibly for minimum wage differentials. It is bitter irony that the Sherrods have succeeded in being awarded $300,000 following a discrimination lawsuit, while … impoverished NCI black laborers whom NCI exploited were never adequately compensated for their “pain and suffering.” (the following sentences appeared earlier in the column) … Justice and integrity require at least as much accountability from Mrs. Sherrod to the poor black farm workers of NCI as to the white farmers she came to befriend. This lack of full disclosure of the whole truth is a “sin of omission” that trivializes the suffering of poor black farm workers and exacerbates the offenses of NCI. This is hardly a right-wing hit piece. Wilkins’s bio at the end of his column describes him as “a former organizer in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee,” and further claims the following: In 1974, under an assumed name, he hired-on at New Communities Inc. The Emergency Land Fund, an Atlanta-based black land retention organization, which shared oversight responsibility for NCI’s progress, wanted to know the basis for NCI’s continued poor performance. … For his role in organizing NCI’s workers, management eventually fired him from his $40 per week position, evicted him from the rent-free shack on NCI property and orchestrated his arrest, on bogus charges, by FBI agents and Lee County, Georgia Sheriff’s deputies in the midst of an NCI labor protest. The charges were later dropped. In his column, Wilkins refers to a report in  El Macriado , which was then a monthly publication of the United Farm Workers. That report contains these two final paragraphs describing Charles Sherrod’s attitude toward labor-management relations: Though (the original reads “through” — Ed.) several of the cooperative’s funding organization’s are pressuring Charles Sherrod, the farm’s manager, to reach a settlement with the strikers, he remains unwilling to negotiate. With so few scabs left in New Community’s (sic) fields, the UFW first strike in the southeast area (outside of Florida) may bring the first of many UFW contracts to these fields that were once harvested by slave labor. You read that right: “Scabs.” Despite the contemporaneous evidence that his allegations of serious labor mistreatment are credible, Wilkins’s column has been ignored by the establishment press: On August 4, two days after the Counterpunch item appeared, the Associated Press published two pieces apparently intended to be the last word on the main players in the Sherrod controversy — one by Julie Pace (“AP Exclusive: USDA racial flap reconstructed”) containing what AP claims is the backstory of the lead-up to Sherrod’s firing, and another by Michael R. Blood (“Breitbart: Enemy of the left with a laptop”) which portrays Andrew Breitbart, whose posting of a brief speech excerpt at his BigGovernment.com web site first brought Shirley Sherrod to the nation’s attention (the USAcationnew.com web site actually posted the video first , as this July 15 tweet demonstrates). Neither AP article alludes to the Sherrods’ alleged troubled labor history. An advanced search on “Shirley Sherrod” (not in quotes) at the New York Times indicates that the latest related story was on August 1, the day before the Counterpunch item appeared. Searches at the Times’s Media Decoder , The Caucus , and The Lede blogs on the “Shirley Sherrod” tag also have nothing. A Washington Post search on “Shirley Sherrod” (in quotes) returns several items dated August 2 or later. But two of them are the AP items already noted, and the others don’t refer to the Sherrods’ alleged inhumane labor practices during the 1960s and early 1970s. An August 4 Tribune Media item originating from Albany, Georgia by Kathleen Hennessey (Hard feelings about handling of Shirley Sherrod have deep roots in Georgia) and carried at the Los Angeles Times contains several direct quotes from residents. Even though she was almost literally in the neighborhood, there is no evidence that Hennessey attempted to follow up on the allegations contained in the Counterpunch item that had been out for two days. It is not reasonable to believe that the establishment press is not aware of the story by this time. A Google Web search on [“Ron Wilkins” “Shirley Sherrod”] (typed as indicated between brackets) for the past seven days returns about 180 items (it says almost 600 , but it’s really “only” about 180 ). No cocoon of ignorance is that tight. It’s more reasonable to believe that the establishment press is not interested in letting Wilkins’s charges get out to the majority of the population that isn’t paying close attention, lest it damage the current “Shirley good, Breitbart bad” meme. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Read the original here:
Establishment Press Ignores Counterpunch Accusations That Sherrods Mistreated Workers at New Communities