3
Showing posts with label Daily Newspapers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Daily Newspapers. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Sir Conrad Black...alleged robber Baron released on $2 Million Bond!









In my "Canuck" mind, there are only two high-flying birds worthy of note in the rustic terrain of Canada.

Out front, there is tthe unique mercurial rascal Nelson Skalbania - and lagging behind slightly - that scrappy (Sir) Conrad Black who ended up in the slammer.

Until Wednesday, that is, when a U.S. District Court Amy St. Eve (too precious a thought to wrap my head around) ordered that the once-infamous robber - um - publishing Baron be released on bond.



The high-profile publisher once Lorded over a dazzling media empire which included prestigious rags like the London Daily Telegraph, the Chicago Sun-Times, and Canada's National Post.

The latter was Black's dismal disjointed effort to weave a tapestry of distinct "Canadian" news that just didn't fly in some quarters.

To get a handle on the "Post", imagine a big ballsy bloated version of  USA Today - rife with fluff and pretensions of not being Provincial - and you've got it!

Although media hounds south of the border referred to the rogue investor (who facilitated other people's money ninety-percent of the time to fund his novel ventures) as a hearty Canadian - by choice - he wasn't in the true sense where it mattered most.

In a lofty reach for elite jet-set status, Conrad Black "relinquished" his Canadian Citizenship, in favor of a Knighthood from the Queen!

Black was scorned for that!

Now stones are being heaved his way since the startling news of his rise like a phoenix from the ashes back into polite society?

Until the Judge fathoms up worthy grounds to toss out Black's 2007 conviction for defrauding shareholders, the Court has issued a directive that he limit his carousing - personally and financially - to the continental United States.

To back-track a tad, it should be noted that Sir Conrad Black was hustled off to a Florida jail in 2008.

A resolute jury convicted the in-your-face celebrity (with the trophy wife) of three counts of fraud and one count of obstruction of justice.

Prosecutors painted a sinister portrait of a greedy man consumed by the high life who treated shareholder accounts as if they were open vaults in his own personal bank to spend at whim..

Prosecutors said Black and three fellow Hollinger executives (also convicted in the case) arranged to pay themselves tax-free bonuses disguised as non-compete fees as they sold off gold chunks of the Hollinger spoils.

Clever, if you can get away with it!

The swindling scheme uncovered and proven at trial, determined that Black spirited away $6.1 Million dollars from defunct Hollinger International Inc.

However, the teflon "Don", squirmed out of nine other counts (which including racketeering) which establishes why Lindsay Lohan may have switched lawyers (a tad too late, poor baby!).

Judge St. Eve sentenced Black (after a trial highly-charged with intrigues) to a 6 1/2 years in prison for his cloak-and-dagger dastardly deeds.

As of this July, the once-fiery media King, will have served approximately two years in the slammer.

In cushy country-club environs?

Just betcha!

Conrad Black's surprise "get out of jail card" surfaced when the  Supreme Court (with U.S. jurisdiction) limited the reach of the federal fraud law that prosecutors sought refuge in respect to corruption cases against government defendants.

"The Federal Law is normally applied in fraud cases in which a person is accused of depriving others of their intangible right to honest services."

Until now, the wobbly statute was considered too vague.

Although Black breathes a little easier this week, the pressure may build in the future, if a myriad of litigants pursue civil lawsuits in a concerted effort to recoup their substantial losses at the hands of a man who - in spite of alleging to be a Professional wordsmith - has remained clueless about the value and meaning of the term remorse.

And, that begs the question.

Where's the moolah?




The House that Hollinger built!


Saturday, June 28, 2008

Las Vegas...Review-Journal to raise newstand cost. Not worth paper printed on!




As I strolled in to the local grocer to snap up a steaming cup of hot java and the morning paper, the clerk informed that the cost of the Review-Journal was going up to seventy-five cents on July 1st.

Well, what is my savvy consumer response to that?

As Samuel Goldwyn once quipped,

"You can count me out!"

Nope, I won't be gleaning the news that's not fit to print, anymore.

No loss.

After all, recently I became frustrated with the daily for a couple of reasons.

The - um - journalists, for starters.

A few days ago one of their columnists - Doug Elfman - chose to take a swipe at pin-up gal - Pamela Anderson - on a very shaky premise which was a big turn off.

Notwithstanding, that kind of tabloid-style piffle should be left to the gossip mongers, not to a writer employed at what has been hailed as a reputable newspaper in Las Vegas.

In addition, I have found that their reporters go on ad nauseam about this 'n that, much to their detriment. Obviously, the Journal has a lot of excess space each edition - otherwise - why would the editors let these bozos expound on such fluff?

When I wrote for a major daily years ago, my editor gave me a great piece of advice: get to the point. I adhere to the principle to this day.

I was also shocked this past week at the arrogance of one of their reporters - Benjamin Spillman - who claims to toil in the business section of the paper.

He had the audacity to zip off an e-mail to me in response to a post I wrote a few days ago - assuming that because I chose not to mention a tidbit in the feature - that somehow my report was off. On the contrary.

His assumption that I was not familiar with a particular fact was way off-base too.

Not only was I aware of the item, but I chose not to include it in the feature, because the mainstream media had been all over the item like flies over sh**. More importantly, the tidbit was so old, it was turning grey with age.

I always endeavour to report on news that is current and fresh and of interest to my readers. Unlike reporters at the Review-Journal who rely on old archives to whip up a story, I am actually in-the-trenches getting the scoops. And, more often-that-not, get my news flashes to copy for my readership well ahead of the "competition".

Notwithstanding, it should be noted that a Managing Editor (with a reputable publication) posted a comment on one of a number of web sites my blog is fed to, and applauded me for a story - he asserted - was the best report on the subject he'd read in fifteen years.

Benjamin, you're out of your league.

Now, go scrape the egg off your face.
 
coompax-digital magazine