Louise Roug and Another Trial
I see that Louise, that Danish pastry of a journalist for the Los Angeles Times, is reporting key facts from Iraq in the trial of Saddam Hussein for war crimes.
I know her, of course, you've already seen how she handled my trial:
Sunday, April 4, 2001
Home Edition
Section: Southern California Living
Actress Lynn Redgrave was on the witness stand in Los Angeles, hating every minute of it. She was being questioned by her ex-husband in one of the nastiest Hollywood divorce trials in years. John Clark, acting as his own attorney, drew close to show her a document. Redgrave flinched. "Please, I would rather he didn't," she implored the judge.
"I understand that sparks fly between you and Mr. Clark," Superior Court Judge Arnold Gold told her. "Just grit your teeth and answer his questions." ...In court, Redgrave was demure and wore black. Clark was rumpled, often removing his jacket and complaining of the heat. . .
Today she reports from the scene in Iraq, the trial judge being Abdullah Amiri, a Shiite Muslim.
Well, here was a difference. At my trial, Saddam Hussein (as he came to be known around Los Angeles Family Court) sat on the bench see file and My folder on Judge Gold.
That being said, she tells us that prosecuting attorney Munqith Faroon demanded on Wednesday that the judge step down after an outburst by the defendant the day before. He charged that the judge had shown bias in favor of the defendant by allowing him to use the courtroom as a bully pulpit.
Judge Amiri then made a statement that made sense, and rang loud and clear. He said "WE ARE ALL EQUAL IN FRONT OF THE LAW."
I wish. I wish he'd been my judge, our family court could use him.
However, at the end of the day, Louise had importantly failed. She failed to note whether or not the defendant's attorney removed his jacket. Was he rumpled? Did he complain of the heat? It must be very hot in Iraq, do they have air conditioning? Did Saddam flinch when asked questions? Did he grit his teeth? Did he wear black? Was he demure?
Perhaps Louise's problem was that she didn't have the Times's supervisor of gossip Gina Piccalo, or her ghost writer Ann O'Neill or the Calendar Editor (none of whom ever talked to me), standing behind her to give her a nudge. Full article with my response to each paragraph. But I would bet that Louise's blonde hair was impeccable.
A word in her ear from me. DON'T lose your head and try taking any of the witnesses out for lunch to gain their confidences, and later write against them in a biased manner. Because if you try it out there, well, they have their methods. Hint. They don't go to court.
Vanessa Redgrave Replaces Lynn
Tucked away on page 4 of today's L.A. Times entertainment section, Mike Boehm reports that Lynn's sister Vanessa will be taking over in Lynn's one woman show, "Nightingale" at the Mark Taper Forum next month.
I was hoping that Lynn's appearance locally would mean that she would be able to appear in LA Family court, so that we could wrap up some outstanding matters in her lawsuit against me, filed in 1999. After the trial she fled California with our children and took up residence in Connecticut, where she and they have stayed hidden ever since.
Oh well, at least the audience will be treated to a fresh interpretation of the play, which deals with their maternal grandmother Beatrice. And maybe it will sell more tickets. But this news rated a mention on page 1, surely.
Sept. 9 update
Today's L.A. Times printed a correction. It said, in full,
""Nightingale": An article in Tuesday's Calendar section about an effort to entice new theatergoers with free tickets to more than 50 shows on Oct. 19 said Vanessa Redgrave was the star of "Nightingale" at the Mark Taper Forum. The play features Lynn...
So now I was really confused. To me that says not only will the play be STARRING Vanessa, but it will also be FEATURING Lynn (yeah, in the hierarchy of showbiz billing, there's a difference...)
I called the box office, and was assured that Vanessa Redgrave will NOT be in it, so I'm passing it on.
Wonder if the LA Times has ever printed a correction of a correction.
L.A. TIMES LOSES CIRCULATION
Our local majestic L.A. Times informs us that they are losing circulation. They must be hurting real bad, with a 6.5% fall in Monday through Saturday circulation and 7.9% for Sundays.
Executive Vice President Jeff Johnson, who will become publisher of the paper next month, tells us that to help close that gap, the paper will spend $10 million on advertising this year, including direct mail, television and radio campaigns.
Somebody needs to tell them "up there" that the money would be better spent to help create another newspaper.
Los Angeles, the second largest city in the country, has a population of 16 million, and can boast of only one newspaper. Voice-wise this is a one horse town, and that is a shameful, shocking, fact.
San Francisco comes up with the Examiner and the Chronicle (population 7 million).
Seattle has its Post-Intelligencer and Times (3.5 million).
San Diego has The Globe and the Union Tribune (1.24 million).
The Times' stagnating and boring methods have brought it to the point where it doesn't just print the news, it "proclaims" the news. After all, why otherwise, since there is no one around to challenge the system.
One cannot help but notice that their news is spread by a myriad of editorializing reporters and journalists, under their own names. If you want to get their ear, well, you probably can. What they practice is a form of wanking.
And for the more readable and arresting voices of dissenters, arguers and debaters, we have to look elsewhere.
The voices that truly challenge the status quo of local government and law enforcers and the courts (and the Los Angeles Times) are to be found in small local publications, such as the Los Angeles Daily News, which covers the Valley.
And to prove my point, their circulation rose slightly, 0.1% for Mondays through Fridays and a small drop of 0.5% on Sundays.
It wasn't always this way. The old Evening Herald and Express merged with the Los Angeles Examiner back in 1961, and became the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, and this Hearst flagship disappeared in 1989, and one wonders why. It should be reborn or reinvented.
One thinks of a lone lawyer, trying to invigorate a community, and not succeeding. Bring in another lawyer in opposition, and sparks can fly.
If the Los Angeles Times is smart and cares about its own health and the health of this city, it will donate the earmarked $10 million to help find a building and fund another newspaper. No, not as an act of pure altruism, but in its own self interest. And they should not retain any ownership whatsoever, just the opposite. They should either GIVE or LOAN the money, and attract independent investors.
The interest of potential readers should not be underestimated, and I have a hunch that Los Angeles citizens will respond with enthusiasm.
ANN O'NEILL, LOUISE ROUG, GINA PICCALO
March 13, 2001
These were the low-lifes that the Los Angeles Times was responsible for concocting this story, although only Roug covered our trial.
The press seems to maintain an unholy alliance with celebrities, probably because they are the source of countless future interviews and collaborative undertakings of mutual benefit, and their unfortunate spouses are not. And as for the general public, they would really prefer not to know any bad things going on in the lives of their favorites, which is understandable, but neither should they be misinformed with celebrity white-washing by the media.
Because I wanted the press to be present at the trials to report on the truth of what was going on for the all important reason that my reputation was at stake, I was glad to meet up front with Louise Roug, sent by the Times. I took her out for lunch. I wanted to know where she was coming from, I wanted to free up her mind in case it was set already. I discovered that she's full-blooded Danish, as was my mother. We got on fine, and I thought I had an ally in truth. She attended for several days, and had access to the facts.
I had been living for two years under the effects of the stunningly awful reports in the press and television media of what a cad I had been, and I was defending Lynn and my kids by not speaking up. Now the truth was about to be revealed, under oath at trial. What better way for me to clear my name. And to do this, unavoidably without a lawyer, I thought at least would attract attention. The air would be cleared, and I could get on with my life. She attended for several days, and had enough of the facts to create a real story. (As a side note, interesting that not one member of the public dropped by to take a look over the entire ten days of trial.)
Instead, to my utter astonishment, she presented this biased and misrepresented account against me in the service of celebrity Lynn, and to please her editors in support, I now see, of her ambition to become a serious journalist with a foreign posting (at this time, unbelievably, she's reporting for them from Iraq!). Her publicized view of me still sticks as part of the false view held by Lynn's fan club. At least that was true until now, where I have a chance to reveal the smoke and mirrors surrounding the case, and provide context with this blawg. If, that is, people will read it.
The account of this trial, of course, belonged on the Business page or the News pages where other trials are reported for the enlightenment of serious readers, not the Entertainments page.
I filed this document with all of its ersatz dirty laundry as part of my Appeal. And it's on the public record, so that other media, like CNN, could read it.
Bear in mind that much of the detail is for the benefit of others contemplating divorce, to correct the serious smear to my reputation, and to show what the courts can do to you if you are not represented. I don't think anyone else has the stomach to do this.
I risk revealing the details of how they play dirty with pro per defendants. They may be emulated by opposing professional attorneys, but I know that their law-schools already taught them the same tricks.
Dan Rather and Memogate
Millions of words have already been written providing a haze surrounding this subject. Let's try to clarify.
The argument boils down to "Should the on-camera personality (read anchor) be in charge of what we see and hear?", with the news departments and producers relegated to being mere functionaries of the anchor?
Or should it be the other way around?
The BBC and the CBC seem to still do it the old-fashioned way, the talent is paid to present the news only. In personality-driven America, we viewers are led to believe that the talent actually drives the news wagon. Rather, Couric, Lauer, Williams, Russert, Brokaw, Sawyer, Gibson, Jennings, Smith, Zahn, King, King, Dobbs, Blitzer, O'Reilly, are names that immediately come to mind.
We are told that they arrive at the studio and sift through the incoming emails, faxes, wire services, memos, and one presumes fan letters, to decide what we should be hearing and seeing before going on the air.
And if that is the case, whom do we blame when the news appears to be false or biased?
What is bias in news reporting, anyway, and where are the limits?
If the reported news is untruthful, the answer is clear, and it is not bias. It may be propaganda, though, which one assumes is ok, but only if it comes from a reliable government source, like Condaleezza Rice (but not if produced under contract with a government source.)
What about reporting only part of the news, the part you wish to release which supports the bias, and withholding the part that tends to not support it?
The air needs to be cleared on these questions. The tail should stop wagging the dog. And the FCC might be the oversight government agency which ought to get themselves involved and help provide some answers.
ELSEWHERE
Newspapers, Magazines, other Media
A great site to find what news media is available in most places in the world is ABYZ News Links
Some of the important sites follow:
U.S.A
Newspapers, Magazines, other Media
