Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
The Chiquita Story: How the Times Goes Soft on Corporate Crime
Also in Top Stories
Synthetic Pot as a Military Weapon? Meet the Man Who Ran the Secret Program
Martin A. Lee, AlterNet
Economic Realities Are Killing Our Era of Fantasy Politics
Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com
Why Karl Rove Should Go to Jail
Rep. Linda T. Sanchez, Huffington Post
Maliki Endorses Obama's Iraq Timeline in Huge Blow for McCain, Bush
Tom Hayden, Huffington Post
Reborn MLB Slugger Josh Hamilton Is One Lucky Former Drug Addict
Anthony Papa, AlterNet
Fidel Castro on Fidel Castro
Greg Grandin, The Nation
What Does Silence Really Sound Like?
Marisa Taylor, Ode
As Obama Heads to Middle East and Europe, Let's Talk About U.S. Imperialism
Roberto Lovato, Of America
Murdoch will no doubt push the Journal further to the Right , leaving the New York Times to hold the center. Yet let's not forget that while the Times might publish opinion pieces that come from across the spectrum, we don't need to cite Judy Miller and Gina Kolata to demonstrate how its reporting has already been far more conservative than might be claimed.
Nowhere is that more apparent than when it comes to the Times' coverage of worker rights issues. TheTimes used to have a labor beat reporter, in fact, a position that disappeared years ago. Ever since, the perspective of workers, unions, and worker advocates has regularly given short shrift.
I was reminded of this by an article published last Thursday about a federal investigation into an ongoing investigation into Chiquita's operations in Colombia, where the company made "protection payments" to the United Self-Defense Forces (aka the A.U.C.), a (paramilitary) "group considered a terrorist organization by the United States."
The company's story is that it continued to make the payments even after top executives revealed them to the Department of Justice in order to protect its own workers -- i.e. it claims that the A.U.C. threatened that it would kill many of the company's workers if it stopped making the payments.
The story was interesting to the Times because Chiquita board member Roderick Hills, the former SEC chair who sits on Chiquita's board, is now caught in the middle of this mess as a result of his own due diligence. Hills brought the issue to the Department of Justice in anticipation that it would provide the company with lenient treatment for doing so. Instead, DoJ cracked down on the company, especially as it continued to make the payments. As a result, this March the company pled guilty to engaging in transactions with a terrorist group and agreed to pay $25 million in fines.
Hills and other Chiquita officials may still be charged as individuals for their actions.
Hills' defenders say he's being unjustly threatened for being more proactive than most directors.
And that may be true.
Yet the Times reporter, Neil Lewis, left readers with the impression that Hills is being unjustifiably pilloried by ending with some quotes from former SEC enforcement chief Stanley Sporkin, who described Hills as "both sophisticated and honorable and said that any advice Mr. Hills gave Chiquita to continue the payments until something was worked out to protect workers' lives was "hardly off the wall -- there was a legitimate question here, a real issue of lives."
As a former judge and former CIA general counsel (currently a consultant with the Gavel Consulting Group, and ombudsman for BP), it's unlikely Sporkin would comment on the record unless he was intimately familiar with the facts in this case.
See more stories tagged with: chiquita, colombia, chertoff, auc, paramilitary
Charlie Cray is director of the Center for Corporate Policy in Washington, DC.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »