Cover-up: The Berkshire Eagle's CEO "Barred..Reporting" on Stracuzzi Sex Cases!

'Awful Details'

by G.M.Heller
Published: Thursday, April 21, 2011 11:30PM

"The publisher barred us from reporting the awful details in the CEO story" writes Conor M. Berry, former senior crime reporter for The Berkshire Eagle, explaining how The Eagle's publisher and CEO, Andrew Mick, directly interceded to limit not only the scope of Mr. Berry's reportage but also exactly which details were to be given to the public (and, more importantly, which were not) regarding two pedophilia cases involving Angelo Stracuzzi, one of Berkshire County's then most powerful civic, political, and business figures.

Mr. Stracuzzi was also CEO of a bank the advertising dollars from which were (then and now) largely responsible for keeping The Eagle afloat.

Andrew Mick, Publisher and CEO, The Berkshire Eagle

The following is Mr. Berry's revealing discussion (posted to PlanetValenti) about what transpired at The Eagle when he became aware of the original criminal charges filed against Mr. Stracuzzi by police in Biddeford, Maine, which allegations included multiple counts of 'Patronizing Prostitution of a Minor' involving boys whose ages at the time were approximately 15 and 13 years-old:

From: Conor Berry

April 21, 2011 at 12:13 pm

"Mr. Heller,

"You win: So, I’m feeling some pressure, as a reporter, to peel the onion further, especially since the “citizen journalists” of the online world are mentioning the awful, tawdry details of the Greylock CEO case and I haven’t written word one — though I did, in a rather delphic way, allude to some bizarre sets of circumstances.

Conor M. Berry, former senior crime reporter for The Berkshire Eagle, now with The Republican in Springfield, Mass.

"Didn’t the CEO’s mother warn him against picking up hitchhikers?!

"I was originally told, point blank, by two well-placed law enforcement sources that the underlying charges, the ones The Eagle avoided covering initially, stemmed from allegations that the CEO in question solicited sex from a group of boys or pre-teens up in Biddeford, ME.

"At that point, I had no idea the allegations stemmed from two separate incidents spread over two evenings. I actually learned that from you, Mr. Heller. My source said, and I quote: “He offered money to some boys for a [blank].”

"Once I learned of the disposition of the case from Maine law enforcement officials, I was disturbed by the underlying charges — the ones that were dismissed by the state of Maine.

"I was fully prepared to report on these original, more disturbing charges, but my editor told me to hang tight until he ran it by the publisher (understandably, my editor didn’t want another Massimiano story on his hands, and frankly I didn’t want to be maligned in another full-page color ad in my own paper! Incidentally, what kind of thought goes through a publisher’s head when he accepts $20,000+ for an ad mocking his paper, his editor and, arguably, the only reporter at his paper who was asking any intelligent questions?).

Angelo C. Stracuzzi, former president and CEO, Greylock Federal Credit Union

"Hold on, Heller, here it comes: The publisher barred us from reporting the awful details in the CEO story.

"I was told by my editor that, according to the publisher, if the bank CEO had incurred more recent charges, whether they be in Maine, Connecticut or Massachusetts, for that matter, we could proceed. But we were NOT to focus on charges that were, by then, already a half-dozen years old. Particularly charges that weren’t ultimately pursued by the state of Maine, but rather dismissed by the state of Maine.

"I’ve alluded to all of this before, Mr. Heller, but you apparently weren’t satisfied with my allusions.

"Not for nothing, but this sort of back-and-forth discussion is nothing new in the world of newspapers, but rather something that boils down to “news judgment.” I’m sure you’ll have a field day with that phrase, but every paper in America, depending on its trajectory and mission, has its own sense of news judgment. Some papers are more to the left, others more to the right.

"For a small, regional daily such as The Eagle, there is a pronounced sensitivity to the “names in the news,” the “power structure,” or, as you fellows frequently refer to them, the “GOBs.”

"During my 3 1/2-year tenure at The Eagle, I was called into my editor’s office several times so he could give me “heads-up” about the publisher hearing such and such about me … that the publisher had heard that I was asking this guy about this matter, and that gal about that matter, etc., etc.

"It wore on me, frankly, and I did feel that it inhibited me from doing my job as a reporter, which is to dig and ask questions, regardless of how unsavory the issue at hand is, or regardless of how powerful (or delusional?) the subject of the questions may be.

"Very disheartening, indeed.

"And I can honestly report that this was the first time, in my relatively long journalism career, that I ever felt the long arm of the publisher’s office sticking itself into places it had no right to be stuck. Pardon whatever unsavory imagery that phrase may conjure …

"I won’t detail other cases of publisher intrusion, but I often found myself in a defensive posture, defending myself against crimes, rumors and innuendo that simply weren’t true. In a word, I was disgusted, and my frustration was well known in the newsroom.

"That aside, I can’t say enough good things about my managing editor, a native son of the county, who never shied away from hard news or news that may have rocked the boat. He was my rabbi, and I’ll always respect him for that.

"On a final note, when an editor picked up a proof of the full-page ad (the one in which Massimiano, that powerful little man, maligns me as a reporter and threatens to sue me) and brought it into the executive editor’s office so we could digest its contents, the publisher very angrily stormed into the executive editor’s office and chastised we goofy news guys for examining the ad, which was promptly taken away from us. Again, welcome to bizarro world.

"Respectfully,
CONOR

"PS — I apologize, Mr. Valenti, for using your forum to respond to Mr. Heller, but his own blog spots don’t get any traffic, and, for better or worse, he seems to have found a new home on PlanetValenti. You should charge him rent, Dan!"

--------------------------------------------
Conor M. Berry is no longer writing for The Berkshire Eagle; he now reports for The Republican in neighboring Springfield, Massachusetts.

From Mr. Berry's Web page at The Republican:

About Me: As a longtime newspaper reporter, I've covered everything from crime and politics to offshore whale entanglements and dairy farming. Now it's time to embrace real-time reporting, so please drop me a dime -- anytime -- at cberry@repub.com or (413) 788-1276.

--------------------------------------------
Write to G.M. Heller at editor@berkshirerecord.com

Other articles of interest in this series:
>When Will The Publisher Stop Covering For The Banker? -- Just what does Greylock's disgraced ex-CEO have on The Berkshire Eagle's Andrew Mick? -- What else is The Berkshire Eagle failing to report?, Saturday, June 19, 2010
>State of Maine v. Angelo Stracuzzi -- What The Berkshire Eagle Fails to Report, Thursday June 03, 2010

Fed Steroid Probe: Who's Next?

Investigation Has Many in Berkshire County on Edge

by G.M. Heller
Published: Saturday, March 26, 2011, 06:30AM

Pittsfield, Massachusetts -- The U.S. Postal Investigative Service/U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration probe into illegal Anabolic Steroid use in Pittsfield has already produced fallout, sidelining one Pittsfield Police Department officer and one Massachusetts State Police officer.

The PPD officer is David P. Kirchner of Lenox, while the MSP officer has yet to be named and is, according to The Berkshire Eagle, a "trooper, who is stationed at the Russell barracks and is believed to live in Berkshire County". (Editor's note: District Attorney David F. Capeless revealed March 29th that the name of the Massachusetts State Police trooper implicated in the federal probe is Daniel Gale.)

Who's next to be engulfed in this scandal?

Based on PPD's own March 10th, 2011 Internal Affairs report, there's at least one more PPD employee whose fate has yet to be made public.

Berkshire Eagle reporter Conor Berry reports in today's (March 26) Berkshire Eagle the following, based on PPD's Internal Affairs report:
[Brackets below indicate this writer's own edits]

"(O)fficials [presumably USPIS/DEA] met with [PPD's Internal Affairs pointman Capt. David R.] Granger on March 7 and March 8, turning over various investigatory materials, including supporting affidavits, written and audio statements and other evidence implicating Kirchner and an unidentified individual in the illegal purchase of steroids."
[Italics added by this writer for emphasis.]

Now by definition, USPIS/DEA would only be turning over to PPD's Internal Affairs unit 'investigatory materials' related to matters within the IA unit's jurisdiction -- meaning matters specifically involving PPD personnel. Therefore, there remains one PPD employee whose fate has so far not been made public.

Who is that unidentified PPD employee and when will PPD tell the public of its actions regarding this person's specific case?

Further, Capt. Granger's IA Report is dated Thursday, March 10. That's more than two weeks ago. Just when was PPD going to get around to making that IA report public (and when was The Berkshire Eagle, which initially had to be brought kicking and screaming even to report on this federal investigation, finally going to report it)?

Further, the public still is not being told the who, what, where, how and when as to the event/bust/or whatever allegedly took place in downtown Pittsfield sometime during the period March 12-19. It is that event which first caused a rash of rumors to circulate throughout the city.

Just as important, and the question keeping many in Berkshire County on edge: who else is being implicated in the Feds' steroids probe by the person known only as "[name deleted], the subject and defendant" [quoting directly from PPD's IA report]?

According to information that has come 'over the transom', that list of possible 'who else's' may include "many more PPD patrons [of a steroids dealer] than they [USPIS/DEA originally] thought but also lawyers and other prominent people ...". <<<<< --------------------------------------------------------------------

Write to G.M. Heller at editor@berkshirerecord.com

When Will The Publisher Stop Covering For The Banker?

Andrew Mick

Angelo C. Stracuzzi

Just what does Greylock's disgraced ex-CEO have on The Berkshire Eagle's Andrew Mick?

What else is The Berkshire Eagle failing to report?

by G.M. Heller

Published: Saturday, June 19, 2010, 12.34 P.M. EST.

Pittsfield, MA --- Why has Andrew Mick, Publisher and CEO at The Berkshire Eagle, been covering-up for Angelo C. Stracuzzi, former President and CEO at Greylock Federal Credit Union?

On Friday, June 4, 2010, Mr. Stracuzzi, 61, the former Pittsfield City Council president, resigned (some say he was fired) from the board of trustees at nationally-recognized Greylock Federal Credit Union, where Mr. Stracuzzi has served for years as the organization's high-profile, highly paid president, CEO, and advertising spokesperson.

Mr. Stracuzzi's face along with the familiar tagline, "Tell 'em Angelo sent you!," has been a staple of Greylock's advertising campaigns for years, while on-air his cheerful upbeat delivery touting the credit union's financial products is well-known to radio listeners throughout the region.

This surprising turn of events allegedly stemmed from trustees' concerns over what Greylock board chair Sheila LaBarbera called, in a statement issued late that Friday afternoon after boardmembers met with outside counsel, 'potential conflicts-of-interest' in the handling of Mr. Stracuzzi's probation in a misdemeanor case for which he had been convicted five years earlier in another state.

Mr. Stracuzzi pled guilty to one count each of assault & battery and criminal mischief in May, 2005 in York County Superior Court in Alfred, Maine.

This startling revelation that Mr. Stracuzzi had had a run-in with Maine cops only came about because The Eagle had reported it in its Sunday May 30 edition as part of a different story that The Eagle apparently believed was more newsworthy.

The Eagle was running a story on a local angle in response to having been upstaged by The Boston Globe just days earlier when The Globe's Spotlight Team broke news that the Massachusetts Probation Department, under state Commissioner John J. O'Brien since 1998, has been rife with patronage hires, nepotism, influence peddling, favoritism, and questionable quid pro quo campaign contributions. (Who would have thought this could happen in Massachusetts?)

The Globe series made specific mention of a patronage (read: nepotism) hire in the North Adams probation office who'd also been alleged to be a 'no-show,' and who, after complaints had been received by department headquarters in Boston, had subsequently been transferred to the South County office at near double his North Adams salary.

It was a story The Eagle should have known about and should have been the first to report long ago, but never did.

So in the wake of The Globe's scathing statewide scoop, The Eagle, in an article dated May 30, 2010 and headlined "Probation Cloud Hits County", reported on what appeared to be a local conflict-of-interest from five years earlier when Berkshire Superior Court's probation office in Pittsfield was given authority to oversee a local man who'd been convicted in Maine and whose probation was transferred to Massachusetts under the so-called Interstate Compact.

That man was Angelo Stracuzzi.

The conflict-of-interest to which Greylock chair LaBarbera referred in her June 4 press release stemmed from Mr. Stracuzzi's probation having apparently been overseen by his friend and fellow Greylock board member (and the credit union's former chair) Clifford Nilan, whose day job was, and is, chief of probation at Berkshire Superior Court.

(Except that the state Probation Department is now backtracking, according to The Eagle, and is now claiming that Mr. Nilan did not "play a direct role in supervising Stracuzzi," yet department headquarters in Boston is at odds to say just who did oversee Mr. Stracuzzi.)

Despite being subordinated within an article about a different scandal, that first mention in The Eagle of a heretofore unreported criminal matter involving one of Berkshire County's leading political and business figures was surprise enough.

But what caused even more public consternation and speculation (especially online within The Eagle's Topix threads) was that, after acknowledging in the May 30 article that it had actually been aware of Mr. Stracuzzi's conviction for at least five months (since January, according to The Eagle, when it sent emails to Probation Department headquarters), The Eagle after all that time was still only able to give the most vague description and sparse accounting as to what actually led to a criminal complaint being issued against Mr. Stracuzzi in the first place.

What kind of incident six years earlier could possibly have caused a successful bank executive and former Pittsfield City Council president to be criminally charged in a coastal resort town like Biddeford, Maine?

The Eagle's May 30 eye-opener contained little else about Maine's July 2004 criminal case against Mr. Stracuzzi, nor any explanation how or why he happened to be in Biddeford.

Prominently reported in that article, though, was Mr. Stracuzzi's own explanation for what happened.

According to that May 30 report, "Stracuzzi, 61, told The Eagle last week that he was charged with assault after he pushed a young male hitchhiker out of his car in Biddeford one afternoon. Stracuzzi said he believes the criminal mischief charge was leveled against him because he broke the hitchhiker's necklace."

Bad enough that were there an actual crime, The Eagle was relying upon the alleged perpetrator as its witness to relay what happened (like the fox being interviewed about goings-on at night around the chicken coop), but The Eagle then failed to present any evidence, source, or details to confirm Mr. Stracuzzi's version of events.

For example, The Eagle omitted any reference to, or interview with, Sarah Churchill, an attorney and specialist in criminal trial litigation with the high-priced law firm Strike, Goodwin & O'Brien in Portland, Maine, whom court records indicate represented Mr. Stracuzzi before York County Superior Court Judge G. Arthur Brennan.

In addition, The Eagle, other than including Mr. Stracuzzi's initial reference to a "young male hitchhiker," failed to state whether anyone from the newspaper tried to contact that individual to obtain his side of the story, especially since that individual's name was indeed available from court records (despite being a juvenile at the time).

Not only that, but The Eagle omitted any reference whatsoever to the Biddeford Police investigation that followed, or to the detectives' report that formed the basis for issuing Mr. Stracuzzi a summons.

Also omitted were quotes from those Biddeford Police detectives, even statements made 'not for attribution'.

Further omitted was public information on file at York County Superior Court in the clerk's office, data which could easily have been obtained via telephone just by speaking with court personnel. (Alfred, Maine is a quiet, friendly town of 2500, and the superior court clerk's office is open from 12-4 weekdays.)

Just about the only thing that was being acknowledged by the newspaper was that: "The Eagle has formally requested more information about the case, but the Biddeford Police Department and York County District Attorney Mark Lawrence have yet to respond."

The fact that Biddeford is 222 miles away -- by car less than four hours from Pittsfield -- apparently made it impossible for The Eagle during the Berkshires' incredibly busy mud season -- January through May -- to dispatch anybody to Biddeford to interview anyone in the police station which investigated the case, in the D.A.'s office which prosecuted the case, in Biddeford District Court where the case was initially heard, or in York County Superior Court where sentence was ultimately pronounced and records are maintained.

Historically, The Eagle has shown great ingenuity and unabashed energy in reporting local crime stories and criminal proceedings, doing so on matters horrific and benign.

The newspaper's daily regimen invariably includes even the smallest details carefully lifted and sifted from police and court records, guaranteed to embarrass any Berkshire defendant, his extended family, and friends.

The Eagle is known to publicize and even to amplify in excruciating detail and without reserve the who, what, where, how, when, and often the why of any incident.

The criminal prosecution, minutia from every subsequent court proceeding, and the court climax with a detailed listing of everything the judge's sentence imposes is all standard fare in The Eagle.

There's little that goes on in Berkshire County's courts about which The Eagle's readers are not made fully aware.

In nearly every case, except apparently, this one.

(And also, of course, those matters involving patronage, nepotism, favoritism, and no-show hiring in Berkshire County's Probation Department offices.)

Inexplicably, The Eagle, even to this day, still has failed to report what actually happened in Biddeford in July 2004 that led police in that municipality to issue a criminal summons to one of Berkshire County's leading citizens.

Unreported in the May 30 article, for example, is just why Maine prosecutors would accept nothing less than a guilty plea on something so seemingly silly as what Mr. Stracuzzi claims was a dust-up with a hitchhiker?

The Eagle's follow-up report published June 3, headlined "Probation to Review Case," added little to the sum of public knowledge concerning Mr. Stracuzzi's contretemps in Biddeford.

Likewise the newsflash posted to The Eagle's Web site late the afternoon of June 4, that broke the story headlined "Stracuzzi Resigns Greylock Board, Placed on Leave as CEO," did not do any better in adding to the sum of the public's knowledge as to what actually transpired in Biddeford, or to explain how whatever it was could have created such a dramatic ripple effect six years later.

This was like reporting on the devastation from a Level 5 hurricane without actually reporting that it had ever rained, let alone been windy.

It took another week, until June 11, for The Eagle finally to acknowledge in a reference buried deep within a related article, this one simply headlined "Stracuzzi Resigns as CEO," that: "Stracuzzi's latest legal headache stems from separate 2004 incidents in Maine, according to York County Superior Court officials. Stracuzzi was charged with six crimes in connection with two back-to-back incidents in July 2004, including two counts of soliciting sex from a minor, according to a spokeswoman in the court clerk's office."

"Separate 2004 incidents in Maine"?
"Charged with six crimes"?
"Two back-to-back incidents in July 2004"?
"Two counts of soliciting sex from a minor"?

Please excuse our ignorance, but from where had all this suddenly come?

What else had yet to be disclosed by The Eagle?

What else was The Eagle omitting from this image shattering news story?

Worse, what had actually happened during those incidents in Biddeford -- now apparently two of them back-to-back -- that was still not being reported by The Eagle?

What the public had initially been led to believe was just some momentary nonsense with a hitchhiker and broken jewelry, was now turning into something with strange and sinister implications.

Yet, even with The Eagle's 'come lately' admission on June 11 that there had been allegations of multiple incidents and crimes, even with that tacit acknowledgement, The Eagle was still omitting relevant facts and details about which The Eagle's editors were now well aware at that point, and which related directly to the "two back-to-back incidents" The Eagle was now finally acknowledging.

Such as: that the alleged "minor" (note The Eagle's use of the singular) involved in these matters was, in fact, two different boys, aged 15 and 13, respectively.

Hence, the two separate incidents.

Such as: that the incident alleged by Mr. Stracuzzi to have taken place during the day, as was initially reported by The Eagle May 30, appears actually to have taken place in the evening.

In fact, each incident had been called into Biddeford Police in late evening, specifically 9:36 P.M. in the first instance, Monday, July 26, 2004; and then one the following night at 10:00 P.M., according to the blotter at the Biddeford Police station.

Such as: that Judge Brennan ordered psychological evaluation and counseling as a condition for Mr. Stracuzzi's probation.

That is something which could have real-life implications for juvenile males near and far should Mr. Stracuzzi or the Berkshire County Probation Office fail to follow through on Judge Brennan's order.

Imagine if what happened in Biddeford were to happen elsewhere in some future time because either psychological evaluation and counseling had not occurred as ordered, or because Mr. Stracuzzi's treatment was not continued as needed.

As it stands right now, The Berkshire Eagle's readers still do not officially know just what happened in Biddeford, Maine when Angelo Stracuzzi wheeled into town that balmy evening in July 2004.

Nor do The Eagle's readers know why Greylock's board formally accepted the resignations of both Mr. Stracuzzi and his fellow board member Clifford Nilan; nor even why Mr. Stracuzzi formally resigned his position as president and CEO.

The Berkshire Eagle continues to stonewall, to cover-up, to dissemble, to omit, and to obfuscate, apparently on behalf, and for the benefit, of Mr. Stracuzzi.

Why is The Eagle's Publisher and CEO, Andrew Mick, allowing any of this to take place on his watch?

[Editor's Note: Andrew Mick reports ultimately to William Dean Singleton of Denver, Colorado, founder and CEO of MediaNews Group. Mr. Singleton is also chairman of the board of directors of the Associated Press (AP), and, according to Wikipedia, "serves as publisher of a number of MediaNews' dailies, including the Denver Post, the Salt Lake Tribune and the Detroit News."]

Barack H. Obama: Democrats' Lament

Looks like the partisan Liberal hack who writes The Berkshire Eagle editorials cannot handle the fact that his candidate Barack (not supposed to say Hussein) Obama is finally facing some long-overdue, tough questioning.
Sorry Eagleboy, but the reverend minister from whom this next possible president seeks comfort and counsel for twenty years IS America's business, especially when that holier-than-thou preaches hate.
Also of import is the symbolic decision by Mr. Obama not to display the American flag in his lapel.
A small thing, maybe, but the fact that BHO is at odds to do it says a lot more about the man behind the mask than any of his hope-hope-hooray hoopla.
And do I need to address the fellow's -- and his wife's -- public expressions of outright elitism?
Face it, Eagleboy, your guy is on the skids.
Looks like too many Democrats put too many eggs too soon in one basketcase.

Trashing Bill O'Reilly -- Professional Jealousy or Sanctimonious Drivel? ---- The Berkshire Eagle Dumps on the King of Fox News!

Top: Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly of The O'Reilly Factor.
Middle: Milton Bass, Berkshire Eagle columnist, on a trip in Switzerland, a few years ago.
Bottom: Clarence Fanto, Berkshire Eagle columnist and former editor.

What is it with The Berkshire Eagle's columnists Milton Bass and Clarence Fanto?
They both feel the need to rant about Bill O'Reilly and anyone else affiliated with Fox News, traditionalism, or political Conservatism.
Bass ought to stick with a subject he knows something about: music -- especially jazz.
Given Bass's and Fanto's predisposition for dismal, too often factually-challenged, quasi-Socialist commentary, Bass's review today (and Fanto's of 12/28) will likely not disappoint their hundreds of loyal Berkshire fans.
(Both columns are reproduced below in their entirety due to The Eagle's inexplicable habit of mysteriously deleting articles from its own Web archives.)
According to Fanto, he and O'Reilly even shared proximity at CBS News in the early 1980's at an early stage in both their careers.
So how has it come to pass that competing against the best journalists the other networks have to offer, O'Reilly has succeeded in becoming one of the nation's pre-eminent broadcasters -- watched, listened to, and read (even admired) by millions?
The O'Reilly Factor beats ... no, correct that ... destroys its competition -- at MSNBC, CNBC, and CNN -- nightly in the Nielsen ratings war.
Whereas, what is the career status of Mr. Bass and Mr. Fanto?
Best we can tell they're at the peak of their respective powers right now.
Their columns appear regularly (and seemingly only) in a New England daily best known for its former glory, but now mostly for struggling with withering circulation.
In addition, while Bass sanctimoniously rails against O'Reilly's personal ethics for an alleged involvement in a sexual harassment matter at the office, and Fanto targets what he calls O'Reilly's 'ultra-right demagoguery' and 'propaganda techniques', it cannot help but be noticed that neither columnist has ever uttered a peep when media people in The Eagle's own figurative front yard commit the same transgressions for which O'Reilly is being trashed.
The "political venom" referenced by Fanto is indeed "spewed daily" on-air right here in Berkshire County.
Local radio/TV superstar commentator and fellow Eagle columnist Alan Chartock has a reputation throughout seven states for ultra-left demagoguery and shrill propagandizing against the Bush Administration, American foreign policy, and the Republican Party.
(A Washington, D.C.-based NPR news producer who heard one of Chartock's rants while driving through upstate New York even remarked on it to a Baltimore reporter saying, “If you took a photo of me in the car my jaw would have been on the floor.")
While Bass focuses on O'Reilly's alleged treatment of a single co-worker, compare that to the repeated allegations against Chartock, whose absolute control at WAMC Northeast Public Radio for 27-years, has resulted in a lurid history of regrettable office behavior -- accusations he, of course, also denies.
(Of perhaps greater import, though -- the thing that should assumedly matter to holier-than-thou, finger-pointing types like Bass and Fanto: The retired SUNY professor apparently enjoys an almost total lack of fiscal accountability at his $7 million-a-year Albany-based public broadcasting charity cum cash machine. Fanto's stunning lack of curiosity on this latter point cannot be so easily excused. His most recent full-time position was as WAMC's news director, hired by Chartock. Fanto thus appears to be ethically-challenged, at least when it pays to look the other way.)
Bass also claims that "O'Reilly's TV ratings went up considerably" during the co-worker "ordeal", and that somehow this tells us "a great deal about the people who watch him."
This slap at O'Reilly's audience could just as easily be aimed at the WAMC audience who regularly listen to Chartock's loony rants.
Chartock is able to meet ever-higher fundraising goals at WAMC in spite of (or perhaps because of) the professor's ultra-left rhetoric and dominance of the station's talk format.
Is it not analogous to say that his audience's continued and increasing support for WAMC translates into telling us a great deal about those who would actually tune in regularly to this venomous propaganda?
Bass's and Fanto's disingenuous diatribes about O'Reilly make us wonder whether either has ever actually watched The Factor (rather than just regurgitated what Web sites like MediaMatters.org say), let alone been regular viewers.
It sure doesn't sound like it because their respective claims that the program puts forth lies and displays a bias are wholly without merit.
Sure, O'Reilly has his strongly-expressed personal points of view, but then so does the Bush/Cheney-hating Chartock, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, NBC's Chris Matthews, NPR's Daniel Schorr, PBS's Bill Moyers, and every other network 'commentator'.
Yet, O'Reilly also takes pains nightly on his program to interview those whose views directly contradict or contrast his own and/or those of his other guests.
He offers guests a world-class soapbox (The Factor has worldwide distribution) from which to clarify their respective positions without 'bloviating' (O'Reilly's favorite word).
In fact, one notable invitee who has steadfastly refused (without explanation) O'Reilly's invitation to appear on camera is none other than Great Barrington's own Selectboard co-chairman Ronald Dlugosz.
It was Dlugosz whose misguided political correctness regarding the town's pathetic Christmas lights display generated in the first place the present controversy for which The Eagle is now eviscerating The Factor host.
So it certainly can't be said that O'Reilly doesn't at least try to be fair.
(Versus The Eagle whose editors will either refuse to publish letters-to-the-editor with which they strongly disagree (like a shortened version of this column), or simply fail to enable their Web site's 'Comments' function on opinion pieces written by Bass, Fanto, Chartock and other dilettantes for whom the editors decide that readers' Internet responses will not be allowed.)
It's as though Bass and Fanto blame O'Reilly because some of those news makers upon whom he focuses his Factor spotlight, like Dlugosz, chicken out and refuse the opportunity to go on record to clarify and/or to defend the actions and/or positions they take.
What makes O'Reilly different -- and the real reason why Bass and Fanto (and by extension their enablers at The Eagle) are taking after him -- is because O'Reilly disdains the Liberal dogma that Bass and Fanto (and most so-called mainstream media) embrace.
The self-righteous Fanto stridently proclaims that "O'Reilly and his ilk ..... spew out a venomous blend of overheated pro-war, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-"socialized medicine," anti-women's rights rhetoric that helps poison the nation's political and social discourse."
Anybody familiar with O'Reilly on-air or in-print knows this is just plain hogwash (and if anything, putting forth such blatant untruths and misstatements of fact reveals gobs about Fanto's own warped left-leaning mindset).
The Factor program and O'Reilly himself are admired by regular viewers (whose loyalty has been hard won over the years) specifically because the show makes a determined effort to provide the Fairness and Balance about which parent Fox News is always bragging and has a lot riding.
This effort has paid off, in audience and advertising revenue, especially when one compares F&B on The Factor to the ofttimes utter lack of it in news programming cranked out nightly by ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC (these last two being called by wags, respectively, the Clinton News Network and the New Clinton News Network).
Now in comparison, Bass's and Fanto's angry charges and uber-Left excoriation are regularly read and admired by a Berkshire audience of -- would it be exaggerating to say a few thousand?
(Of which many of these are best described as the paranoid, delusional political fringe -- the types who steadfastly maintain that Al Gore and John Kerry actually did win but were robbed of victory, and that controlled demolition is what brought down the WTC on 9/11.)
Kudos, Milton and Clarence!
Looking forward to your respective next big career moves.
Waiting especially for the two of you to make that long-awaited jump to cable TV.
I can just see it now: "The Bass and Fanto Factor" on Pittsfield Community Television.
At least it's likely to have a good jazz intro!
* * * * *
The Lively World
O'Reilly's sleazy résumé
By Milton Bass
Sunday, January 06
RICHMOND
There's no denying Bill O'Reilly has the tickets to be a news commentator on cable television. His education has been textbook with both undergraduate and graduate degrees from top colleges and universities, and his experience as a reporter and analyst all over the world has been outstanding.
He is also a genius at marketing. He knows what a certain segment of the public wants and he directs his viewpoints straight at them. He has established himself as an ultimate Catholic who single-handedly protects Christianity from the pagan hordes that have them completely surrounded, and he is also the Ultimate Patriot who smites the enemies of the United States wherever they might stand, sit or creep.
As a consequence he has the highest-rated "news" show on cable television and something over three million rabid listeners on the 400 radio stations that broadcast his program. He also writes a syndicated column and has had seven books published.
The problem with all this is that the man is obviously of low moral character and has hurt many worthwhile people with his righteous wrangling and wrongful purposes. The most recent victim has been the town of Great Barrington and its Selectmen. The excuse for the attack was that Great Barrington shut its (Christmas) (holiday) lights off at 10 p.m. in its bit to save electricity and help contain global warming. An O'Reilly producer came to a Selectmen's meeting with the program's version of "When did you stop beating your wife?" and then showed selected bits on the O'Reilly program. As a result of this, vicious e-mails, containing threats and vituperations of the basest sort, were sent by O'Reilly regulars to Great Barrington and environs. Peace on earth, good will to men.
The thing about O'Reilly (God's henchman), however, is that the history of the man has been lost because he keeps launching attacks that keep everybody so busy that they don't have time to bring up his résumé.
In 2004, which is just three years ago, a 33-year-old female producer on O'Reilly's TV show sued him for "sexual harassment." She brought the suit because O'Reilly had launched a suit against her claiming she was trying to shake him down for $60 million, which happened to be the amount grossed yearly by O'Reilly's show at that time.
The producer, Andrea Mackris, claimed that the then 55-year-old O'Reilly through personal conversations, a great many of them by telephone, made her feel "absolutely threatened" and forced her to earn her living in "a hostile work environment." She claimed in her lawsuit that O'Reilly continually insisted on describing sexual fantasies, masturbation and the use of vibrators, a practice in which he seemed to consider himself a master teacher. She said that he sometimes obviously "pleasured himself" while describing these things to her on the phone.
The details were so graphic that objective bystanders figured the young woman had taped some of these conversations after they had been going on for a while. She claimed that O'Reilly continually talked about how powerful he was and that he could assemble a horde of lawyers that would beat down anyone who opposed him in any legal matter. He also implied that Roger Ailes, the president of the Fox News Channel, had the power of extra-legal means to take care of any enemies that might take on O'Reilly.
Mackris hired a powerful legal team of her own and negotiations began. Word on the street was that parley broke off when the Mackris people felt that an offer of $2 million from O'Reilly was not enough to stop the matter from going to trial. However, before too much time elapsed a settlement was reached and all parties agreed to keep silent on how much money changed hands. O'Reilly was making about $9 million a year at the time and Fox was part of the settlement so there was much conjecture about how many million dollars the young woman received.
O'Reilly made a statement that there was "no wrongdoing in the case whatsoever by anyone" and he ended what he considered a "brutal ordeal" without issuing an apology. The young lady subsequently purchased two condos in New York so her ordeal seemed to end comfortably. By the by, O'Reilly's TV ratings went up considerably during his "ordeal." Which tells you a great deal about the people who watch him and send out vicious e-mails in his behalf.
For those who might be interested in what Mackris claimed to have endured, the court file is available for view on the Internet.
So this is the man who has set himself up as the defender of the faith and the protector of his country. He calls himself an independent, but it is obvious where his political agenda lies. And lies and lies and lies.
Great Barrington has been besmirched in that it was forced to be part of his machinations. If you do not wish to watch O'Reilly in person, Stephen Colbert is more than a reasonable facsimile and quite funny in his impersonation of "the real thing."
Milton Bass is a regular Eagle contributor.
* * * * *
Bill O'Reilly: Voice of fear and ignorance
By Clarence Fanto
Friday, December 28
The recent dustup between blowhard broadcaster Bill O'Reilly and the Great Barrington Select Board over holiday lights is a wake-up call for many here in the Berkshires who are insulated from the hard-right political venom spewed daily over the nation's commercial radio airwaves as well as via cable or satellite on the Fox News Channel.
O'Reilly and his ilk, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Glenn Beck, reach an estimated 30 million-plus Americans every day as they spew out a venomous blend of overheated pro-war, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-"socialized medicine," anti-women's rights rhetoric that helps poison the nation's political and social discourse.
Unfortunately, they far outnumber, in reach and influence, the liberal Keith Olbermann on MSNBC and the temporarily-sidelined equal-opportunity political satirist Jon Stewart and his fellow Comedy Channel protégé Stephen Colbert (whose faux-right wing spoof of O'Reilly & Co. is so spot-on that some viewers don't see through it). They've been sorely missed, even though the Writers Guild of America strike they've honored by remaining off the air is a just cause. They'll be back, most likely without their writing staffs, on Jan. 7.
Ultra-right demagoguery has a long, dishonorable history in American broadcasting, dating back to the radio days of the late 1930s, when Father Charles Coughlin's anti-Semitic, pro-Fascist ravings found an all-too-ready audience of sympathizers. Famously, he blamed the Great Depression on an "international conspiracy of Jewish bankers," the same group he claimed was responsible for the Russian Revolution.
Carried by hundreds of stations via CBS Radio (!) and, by some estimates, reaching as many as one-third of Americans, Coughlin's sympathetic expressions of support for Hitler and Mussolini finally were forced off the air in 1939 after Nazi Germany invaded Poland, a precursor to U.S. involvement in World War II. But other, less extreme right-wing broadcasters like Boake Carter and Fulton Lewis, Jr. continued to attract huge audiences.
University of Indiana media researchers released a study of O'Reilly's commentaries earlier this year, finding that he consistently vilifies certain groups and presents others as victims as part of his skewed world view. The analysis found that the broadcaster used derogatory names every 6.8 seconds, on average, during the "Talking Points Memo" segment of his infamous, ironically titled "No Spin Zone."
"If one digs further into O'Reilly's rhetoric, it becomes clear that he sets up a pretty simplistic battle between good and evil," said Maria Elizabeth Grabe, an associate professor of telecommunications on the Bloomington campus. "Our analysis points to very specific groups and people presented as good and evil." The researcher found that O'Reilly employs propaganda techniques eerily reminiscent of those 1930s radio hatemongers.
Utilizing propaganda tools familiar to students of World War II, the researchers identified O'Reilly's major patterns, all part of his effort to inject fear into the body politic. These include name-calling, "glittering generalities," card-stacking, the bandwagon effect (catering to the widespread desire to follow the crowd), and a pseudo-populist "plain folks" appeal to listeners in an effort to convince them that his ideas are "of the people." The Indiana University study team compared O'Reilly's approach to Father Coughlin's, even reaching the conclusion that the Fox newshound is a "heavier, less-nuanced user of propaganda devices" than Coughlin was.
Key findings pinpoint the use of fear in 52 percent of O'Reilly's commentaries — for example, he moaned that the U.S. was "slowly losing freedom and core values" at the time when "left-wing" media were "unfairly" criticizing the now-disgraced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for his role in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
In the World According to O'Reilly. "politicians and media, particularly of the left-leaning persuasion, are in the company of illegal aliens, criminals, terrorists — never vulnerable to villainous forces and undeserving of empathy," the study concluded. "Our results show a consistent pattern of O'Reilly casting non-Americans in a negative light. Both illegal aliens and foreigners were constructed as physical threats to the public."
Victimized by this vast left-wing conspiracy are most Americans, the U. S. military and the Bush administration, he argues as he casts himself as the chief protector of our fundamental freedoms. He's fond of inviting those he portrays as liberal East Coast elitists and "secular progressives" on his show so he can bully them into submission.
O'Reilly has every First Amendment right to air his views as he has evolved into the advocate-in-chief for neo-cons and disaffected fundamentalists. It's his style and his extremist techniques that are so offensive.
We knew O'Reilly slightly during our CBS News days in the early 1980s, when he was a promising investigative reporter and news correspondent who left the network in a huff when colleague Bob Schieffer used some film footage shot by network crews originally assigned to O'Reilly. Bloated egomania already was becoming evident.
With 10 months of the presidential campaign still ahead, O'Reilly will find plenty of fodder to support his hate-based cottage industry. The $10 million a year man is a self-described frequent visitor to the Berkshires; in the unlikely event that you encounter him on the streets of Great Barrington, be sure to give him a warm greeting.
Clarence Fanto is a regular Eagle contributor.