Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

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

By Charlie Cray, Huffington Post. Posted August 27, 2007.


In the New York Times' bizarro world, a multinational caught financing right-wing terror groups is only looking out for its workers.
Advertisement

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.


Digg!

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 »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Chiquita Story
Posted by: Jeffrey Levy on Aug 31, 2007 12:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for this informative piece.

One correction: It is not true that the New York Times publishes opinion pieces from authors "across the spectrum" as your article maintains.

The Times does not publish pieces submitted by Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, John Pilger or thousands of other individuals and international organizations concerned about civil rights, human rights, or recent US war crimes in Iraq, Vietnam, Colombia, Nicaragua, Lebanon and Afghanistan, to name but a few pertinent examples.

The New York Times' support for brutal regimes and its parallel lack of support for labor rights is nothing new and is in no way at odds with the paper's long tradition of siding with powerful interests rather than with international law or justice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Multi-Nationals and Trade issues
Posted by: Shey on Aug 31, 2007 9:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for this article, although I agree with the previous poster that you give the New York Times far too much credit for supposedly printing articles from across the political spectrum.
Capturing the interest of the general public regarding issues involving multinational corporations and trade agreements is a hard sell. But the fact is, there are always human rights issues involved, as well as issues of corruption involving both U.S. corporations and politicians.
Keep up the good work and try to integrate some of this stuff into a context that will capture more attention. The bottom line is so-called "Free Trade" vs. Fair Trade, and the U.S. government has always been on the wrong side of this fence, for a government that claims to be a Democracy by, for and of the people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mainstream media is not liberal
Posted by: whealeydj on Sep 4, 2007 7:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
further evidence that mainstream media is not liberal like the radical right claims

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]