Scott Pelley will take over the “CBS Evening News” anchor chair from Katie Couric, effective June 6, according to a story published on the network’s web site, but that’s no cause for excitement.
Contrary to glowing comments made about the veteran reporter by CBS executives, the truth about Pelley’s biased reporting is quite disturbing. One stark example of his bias aired two years ago this week in the form of the “60 Minutes” segment, “Amazon Crude,” (below) which painted Chevron Corporation in a particularly bad light for alleged wrongdoing in Ecuador.
[youtube 3hMdsxrAyT0 nolink]
Even before it aired, there was plenty of evidence to refute claims Pelley let stand as facts in his piece. After that report aired, a virtual laundry list of new and irrefutable facts surfaced to change the complexion of this case. Still, neither Pelley, “60 Minutes” or CBS News has seen fit to set the record straight. Thankfully, someone else has.
As I reported in a post almost six months ago, the person chiefly responsible for so many new facts coming to light in the case is Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York:
On May 6, 2010, Judge Kaplan granted the San Ramon, Calif.-based oil giant’s request to have outtakes from Joe Berlinger’s controversial documentary, “CRUDE,” about the lawsuit released.
On Oct. 7, 2010, Judge Kaplan wrote in a memo to his court clerk that copies of the outtakes should be provided to three requesters — Thomson Reuters, American Lawyer Magazine and ALM Media — as well as to “any member of the public who requests (them) upon payment of the reasonable cost of duplication and blank media.” In other words, they should be made public.
On Oct. 20, 2010, Judge Kaplan ruled that Chevron can question and obtain evidence from Steven Donziger, lead attorney for the plaintiffs.
Finally, on Nov. 6, 2010, , Judge Kaplan issued a 54-page legal opinion that could be considered the “death blow” to the case against Chevron. Not only did he turn down Donziger’s requests to limit Chevron attorneys’ access to certain information and subject areas, he wrote described Donziger’s legal proposal as “not persuasive.”
Most newsworthy in Judge Kaplan’s opinion were three entries appearing under the heading, “The Nature of Donziger’s Activities,” on the table of contents. Each foretold the volatile content of the opinion itself.
In “The March 30, 2006, Intimidation of the Judge,” Judge Kaplan wrote the following:
The outtakes depict Donziger and other plaintiffs representatives traveling to an ex parte meeting with a judge on March 30, 2006. At least parts of the meeting appear in Crude. Prior to the meeting, Donziger described his plan to “intimidate,” “pressure,” and “humiliate” the judge:
“The only language that I believe this judge is going to understand is one of pressure, intimidation and humiliation. And that’s what we’re doing today. We’re going to let him know what time it is. . . . As a lawyer, I never do this. You don’t have to do this in the United States. It’s dirty. . . . It’s necessary. I’m not letting them get away with this stuff.”
Donziger repeatedly referred to the Ecuadorian judicial system as “weak,” “corrupt,” and lacking integrity. He further explained to the camera:
“The judicial system is so utterly weak. The only way that you can secure a fair trial is if you do things like that. Like go in and confront the judge with media around and fight and yell and scream and make a scene. That would never happen in the United States or in any judicial system that had integrity.”
Beneath “The Plan to Pressure the Court With an ‘Army,'” the judge wrote the following:
Over a year later, the Crude crew filmed a conversation between Donziger and Fajardo in which Donziger and Fajardo discussed the need to “be more and more aggressive” and to “organize pressure demonstrations at the court.” In the same clip, Donziger referred to the litigation as a “matter of combat” that requires “actually . . . put[ting] an army together.”
The outtakes captured a June 6, 2007 meeting in which Donziger outlined a strategy to pressure an Ecuadorian court. Donziger told those present that the Lago Agrio plaintiffs needed to “do more politically, to control the court, to pressure the court” because Ecuadorian courts “make decisions based on who they fear most, not based on what the laws should dictate.”
Donziger expressed concern that no one feared the plaintiffs, and he stated that the plaintiffs would not win unless the courts begin to fear them. Donziger described also his desire to take over the court with a massive protest as a way to send a message to the court of “don’t f– with us anymore – not now, and not – not later, and never.” He then proposed raising “our own army” to which Yanza interjected “a specialized group . . . for immediate action.”
At that point, Atossa Soltani of Amazon Watch interrupted and asked whether “you guys know if anybody can, uh, subpoena these videos.” Donziger responded, “We don’t have the power of subpoena in Ecuador.” Soltanithen asked, “What about U.S.?,” but Donziger interrupted her and ignored the question. She persisted, saying “I just want you to know that it’s . . . illegal to conspire to break the law” to which Donziger said, “No law’s been conspired to be broken.” The conversation about raising an army to pressure the court then continued, with Yanza waving the camera away as he told Donziger that the “army” could be supplied with weapons.
Two days later, speaking directly to the camera, Donziger continued to emphasize the importance of pressuring the judge in the Lago Agrio litigation. According to Donziger, the plaintiffs’ “biggest problem” had been their inability to pressure the judge. He explained that suing Chevron for moral damages or pressuring the Prosecutor General to open criminal investigations was not sufficient to make the judge feel pressure. Donziger asserted that the plaintiffs needed to do things that the judge would “really feel” such as being “called out” by the president of the country or the supreme court, implying that Donziger and others could develop strategies that would result in such actions.
Finally, Judge Kaplan added more thoughts under the section, “Killing the Judge?” as follows:
Finally, Donziger participated in a dinner conversation about what might happen to a judge who ruled against the Lago Agrio plaintiffs. One or more other participants in the conversation suggested that a judge would be “killed” for such a ruling. Donziger replied that the judge “might not be [killed], but he’ll think – he thinks he will be . . . which is just as good.”
To Judge Kaplan’s findings, we can add several other revealing reports:
Carter Woods’ report, ‘Crude’ Footage Reveals Lies Behind Trial Lawyers’ Suit Against Chevron, was published Aug. 2, 2010, on the National Association of Manufacturers’ Shop Floor blog. As the headline makes clear, the outtakes yielded proof of many lies on the part of the Amazon Defense Coalition, the group representing the plaintiffs in the 17-year-old lawsuit against Chevron.
My Jan. 21, 2011, report, Company That Earned Millions from Gulf Cleanup Tangled in Suit That Could Cost Chevron $113B, which scooped The New York Times by almost 100 days, highlighted connections between the firm that wrote a controversial “expert opinion” for the plaintiffs in the case the “Old Gray Lady” would later describe as a “racketeering” lawsuit.
Carter Woods’ Feb. 3, 2011, report which needs no further explanation beyond the headline, In Chevron Shakedown, Ecuador’s Government Plays a Part.
Of course, I could cite more milestones in the history of the lawsuit, each of which should have prompted Pelley and his CBS News brethren to revisit the case. Unfortunately, I don’t think doing so will prompt members of the CBS News team to have a collective epiphany of objectivity that results in them wanting to set the record straight.
And so, CBS News continues on its path. Going the way of the dinosaur. Toward extinction.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.