Why America’s Free Press Is Circling The Drain

After 45 years in the news business, Marty Baron had no answers for how to address the flailing state of the U.S. media.

Baron, who retired as executive editor of The Washington Post (WP) on Feb. 28, was interviewed Sunday by CBS correspondent Leslie Stahl.

He criticized former GOP President Donald J. Trump for declaring that papers like the WP report “fake news” and for calling reporters the “enemy of the people.” Baron declared that democracy will not die in darkness because of the WP.

Of course, Baron knows that Trump is not the real problem with the media today.

The real problem is that Congress has allowed six corporations to control about 90% of media outlets in United States, and most owners are multi-national corporations that have little or no commitment to the First Amendment or the traditional values of America’s free press.

Baron’s assessment is emblematic of the shocking and extreme dearth of intellectual scholarship about the current and future state of the media. Instead, news anchors and journalism professors are teaching students to capitulate to corporate ownership by losing any semblance of objectivity.

Baron had nothing but praise for Jeff Bezos, the owner of the WP and the owner of Amazon, which many consider to be a monopoly in flagrant violation of U.S. anti-trust laws. Baron said Bezos came to the Post in 2013 with a visionary plan to expand its coverage from a regional newspaper to a national digital publication. (Of course, The New York Times had already launched a digital platform in 1996 and a subscription-based internet paper in 2011.)

Vaccine: Prosecute Line Jumpers!

Why aren’t federal and local prosecutors prosecuting the moneyed elites who are jumping the line to get the lifesaving COVID-19 vaccine?

Remember the criminal prosecutions of the rich Hollywood and Wall Street parents who paid bribes to get this children into Ivy League colleges? The stakes are much higher this time.

Line jumpers literally are stealing the vaccine from people who face much higher risk of severe complications and death due to age or co-morbidity factors. This is a theft far more serious than any other because it potentially costs lives.

Who are these morally deficient line jumpers?

A Nation Afraid Of Its People?

This will be an inauguration like no other in recent history.

It is reported the Pentagon is deploying upward of 20,000 National Guard troops with lethal weapons to Washington, D.C. for the Jan. 20 inauguration of GOP President Elect Joe Biden. This is twice the number of American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.

Additionally, The Army Times reports that, at the request of U.S. Rep. Jason Crow, D-CO, the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command is reviewing the backgrounds of troops involved in inauguration security “to ensure that deployed members are not sympathetic to domestic terrorists.”

This display of force is being arranged even though Biden’s inaugural committee announced on Jan. 3 that there will be a “virtual parade” after the swearing in ceremony to keep crowds to a minimum amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Peoples’ President

Since the election of Democratic President Jimmy Carter in 1977, Presidents and their families have walked at least part of the inaugural parade route on Pennsylvania Avenue on foot to wave at crowds. This act is meant to show they are the “peoples’ president.”

Four years ago, President Donald J. Trump and his wife, Melania, walked along people-lined streets, though police had earlier clashed with protesters, hurling flash-bang grenades to drive them from streets near the parade route.

The theme of Biden’s inaugural committee is decidedly different.

The committee is selling swag on the Internet that includes a $105 “Thakoon Panichgul – Sweatshirt” bearing the logo: “unity won over division.” Panichgul is an American fashion designer. At worst, this logo is a reference to a slander that all Trump supporters are White Supremacists. At best, it doesn’t do much to promote actual unity.

Dark Money in the Federal Courts and the EEOC

So-called “dark money” groups have reported spending more than $800 million on campaign-related activities between January 2010 and December 2016, the last full election cycle.

The top spender on the Federal Elections Commission’s list was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a conservative, profit-making group that laundered $130 million for … who knows?

While dark money is widely associated with political campaigns, including judicial campaigns, it also influences the machinations of federal courts and has reached the front lines of worker rights at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC).

Dark money is money collected by a front or middle-man organization, usually with a vaguely positive sounding name, that is distributed to influence public policy. The source of the money is anonymous so the public is clueless about the donor’s intentions. The U.S. Supreme Court legalized dark money in Citizens United v. FEC (2010).

Dark money strips workers of justice in federal courts and at the EEOC.

Continue reading “Dark Money in the Federal Courts and the EEOC”

The System is Rigged against Sexual Harassment Victims Inside and Outside of Congress

Many folks have expressed outrage that the system set up by the U.S. Congress to handle sexual harassment complains lodged against members of Congress is obviously rigged to protect the harassers.

But Congress’ system, while different, arguably is no worse than the system in place for everyone else. Sexual harassment victims are routinely denied justice by our nation’s court system.

According to a 2017 analysis by legal research service Lex Machina, very few employees who file federal job discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims make it to court. From January 2009 through July 2017, Lex Machina found that of 54,810 cases that were filed in federal courts and closed, employees bringing the suits won just 584 times in trial, or about 1% of the total. Employers won 7,518 cases, about 14%. Another 3,883 cases, or 7%, were settled on procedural grounds, mostly dismissing the employee’s claims. What happened to the rest of the cases? According to Lex Machina, no one knows for sure why 78% of cases (42,742 cases) were dismissed by either the employee or both the employee and employer.

VICTIMS OF DISCRIMINATION WON IN COURT JUST ONE PERCENT OF THE TIME

Let’s compare the process in and out of Congress for handling sexual harassment complaints:

CONGRESS: Victims of sexual harassment by members of Congress have 180 days to bring a claim to the U.S. Congress Office of Compliance, the office responsible for handling workplace complaints.

EVERYONE ELSE: Sexual harassment is a form of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Victims of sexual harassment cannot file a lawsuit until they go through the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s complaint process, which can take years. Victims typically must file a complaint with the EEOC within 180 days of the complained of harassment. Federal employees have a much shorter time limit and must file discrimination charges within 45 days from the date of the alleged violation.

CONGRESS: Victims of sexual harassment by a member of Congress are subject to up to 30 days of mandatory counseling, where they are informed of their rights. They then have 15 days to decide whether to submit their claim to mediation. If they reject mediation or no settlement is reached, there is a 30-day cooling off period before they can file a lawsuit or request an administrative hearing. Victims of sexual harassment by members of Congress could potentially file a lawsuit in a couple of months.

EVERYONE ELSE; Within 10 days of the filing of a complaint of sexual harassment, the EEOC sends a notice of the charge to the employer. In some cases, the EEOC asks both the complainant and the employer to take part in mediation. If one party refuses or mediation fails, the EEOC asks the employer to provide a written answer to the sexual harassment charge. The victim then has 20 days to respond to the answer.

The EEOC orders an investigation, which the EEOC says takes an average average of ten months to complete. At the conclusion of the investigation, the EEOC determines whether there is reasonable cause to believe that sexual harassment occurred.

Typically, the EEOC finds no reasonable cause and the complainant is sent a Notice of Right to Sue the harasser.

In the rare circumstance the EEOC finds there is reasonable cause to believe that sexual harassment occurred, the EEOC tries to reach a voluntary settlement with the employer. If a settlement cannot be reached, the case is referred to EEOC legal staff, who decide whether the EEOC should file a lawsuit. The EEOC rarely files a lawsuit unless there is evidence of systemic sexual harassment involving multiple victims.

If the EEOC decides not to file a lawsuit, the EEOC sends the complainant a Notice of Right to Sue.

The vast majority of sexual harassment victims either can’t afford to file a federal lawsuit or their case is dismissed pre-trial after the employer files a motion for summary judgment.

Some fortunate complainants have the resources to pay a private attorney a retainer of many thousands of dollars and proceed to federal court. But most of their cases are quickly dismissed.

A 2006 study by the Federal Judicial Center found that federal judges granted requests by the employer for dismissal of civil rights cases on a motion for summary judgment 73 percent of the time. Moreover, the win rate for victims of employment discrimination was 15% compared to 51% for plaintiffs in the non-employment context.

If a case survives an employer’s motion for summary judgment, it will likely languish in the court system for years.

The truth of the matter is there is no justice for the vast majority of victims of sexual harassment because the system is rigged to protect employers and not workers. That’s true both inside and outside of Congress. And federal judges from privileged backgrounds and posh colleges have mostly worked for corporations. They can’t empathize with workers and feel these cases are trivial disputes that waste of their precious time.

I recommended in my book, Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace, that Congress establish a special court to consider employment discrimination complaints, staffed with specialized judges who really care about and understand the issues.