Thursday, September 11, 2014

NotParody: James Clyburn says "sexting" is great get out the vote tooll

This journalist's exclusive freelance piece for the Daily Caller.

I represent myself only.  Although given my record that should suffice.

Tuesday, September 09, 2014

Little Luke Gets Huge Meet the Press Bonus, says source

Update: Luke Russert twets bonus denial. My response below

Washington bureau worker bees are incredulous that the under-qualified Luke Russert landed a $500,000 bonus for his new gig as a panelist on the revamped “Meet the Press,” says a well-informed source. 

“I don’t think there is anybody but Comcast management who thinks he deserves that. They can ask him sports scores,” the source snarked about Russert, who worked for ESPN and co-hosted an XM Satellite Radio sports show before he nespotized his way into the hallowed ranks of NBC News correspondents.  

"The crew at NBC [meaning engineers and cameramen] have been talking about this since last week. There are no secrets in the building,"says the source, let's call this person MDL (moderately deep-throated).

Why are they carping  at Luke if he is well-liked and his father is so revered? 
MDL says they are concerned that more more money for the on-air talent (or in Little Luke's case the not  particularly talented) would lead to job cutbacks for them.
 "You always know where the shit is falling."

In the past, NBC has used the salaries for on-air talent and producers  to justify job cutbacks or better pay for the crew,  says MDL. "We already spend this much money on the show," is the typical refrain.

By shows MDL means various shows on NBC and MSNBC not just Meet the Press. 
UPDATE: NBC’s Erika Masonhall  denied the story to Daily Caller Media blogger Betsy Rothstein, who labeled Gahr Washington's "resident phone  enthusiast" because of his Pantheresque penchant for getting elusive people, such as Washington Post executive editor Marty Barron,  on the phone.  “We don’t typically comment on contracts, but in this case we  feel it’s warranted: this is absolutely untrue.”

To quote Stalinist journalist Claud Cockburn, "Never believe anything until it has been officially denied."  But this was really a non-denial denial. She denied he got$500,000 but that leaves open the possibility he received another amount. 

Did he? 

It is also well to note that NBC lied about another story by this reporter when he confronted Keith Olbermann outside the disgraced broadcaster's home about his outstanding tax warrant. 

Update: Luke tweeted on Wednesday after the Page Six report was published that he has not received a single penny from NBC for MTP.  

Is he gong to post his contract online to back up his tweet?  Washington public figures release their private sector contracts all the time.

Also, this non- blog blog faxed him for comment Tuesday morning but he did not respond.  Why did he ignore Media blogger Betsy Rothstein's Daily Caller item on this story later that day? Or just call Page Six himself? As the current CBS evening news anchor once did.

Evan Gahr, a former press critic for the late New York Post editorial page editor Eric Breindel, has written for almost every major conservative publication but was also purged, under White House pressure, by the neo-con Hudson Institute. And blacklisted by AEI magazine editor Karl Zinsmeister for thought crimes. 

Former Washington Post and New York Daily News gossip columnist Lloyd Grove dubbed Gahr a "Washington gadfly"
in one of the many items on his scoops. 




Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Chuck Todd's Ex-Camerman Settles Age Discrimination Lawsuit ment Lawsuit

This is a FREELANCE article
- The Daily Caller - -
NBC News Quietly Settles Cameraman’s Age Discrimination Suit
Posted By Evan Gahr On 10:13 AM 09/05/2014 In | No Comments
A former cameraman for Chuck Todd, who debuts as “Meet the Press” anchor this Sunday, has quietly settled his age discrimination lawsuit against NBC.
But NBC News, which periodically accuses businesses of age discrimination, continues to keep the lawsuit under wraps.
George Hyatt, who worked on Todd’s “Daily Rundown” show on MSNBC, claimed an NBC Washington bureau manager abruptly fired him not long after telling subordinates that he wanted to hire “young blood.”
Hyatt, an NBC cameraman for three decades until his 2011 dismissal, first filed a complaint with the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights.
The investigative body ruled in 2012 that NBC had fired him for “legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.”
But after getting a “right to sue letter” from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Hyatt sued NBC in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on March 7, 2013.
NBC Universal, the parent company of NBC News, contended in court papers that Hyatt was fired solely for poor performance. The company’s motion to dismiss also argued that Hyatt’s contract prohibited discrimination lawsuits against the company.
The judge assigned to the case rejected NBC’s request to throw it out, instead referring both parties last November to mediation before a federal magistrate.
It was settled on July 11, 2014, with no public notice.
The terms of the settlement, as is standard for employment cases, could not be determined from court papers.
The agreement simply stated that each side had agreed to have the case dismissed with prejudice — meaning it cannot be re-filed — and both parties would pay their own legal fees.
Hyatt, now 61, previously told The Daily Caller he wanted either money or his job back to settle his case. He is not currently employed by NBC, according to a Washington switchboard operator and the news desk.
Employment lawyer Morris Fischer told TheDC that NBC likely forked over cash to make Hyatt’s embarrassing lawsuit disappear.
“Usually, an age discrimination case that settles involves money. How much was paid in this case is anyone’s guess.”
Lawyers for both Hyatt and NBC would not comment.
Todd last year told TheDC that he knew nothing of Hyatt’s dismissal or lawsuit, and despite being the show’s host, was not responsible for how the cameraman was treated. Pressed further on Hyatt’s allegations, the normally loquacious newsman hung up the phone, saying “Buddy, all of this sounds like a joke to me.”
Hyatt had told TheDC that Todd was not complicit in his dismissal, but he hoped Todd would “speak out” on his behalf.
Todd did not respond to repeated inquiries about the settlement.

Article printed from The Daily Caller:
URL to article:


New York is paying $100,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit against Columbia University’s renowned psychiatric care and research institute.

Eric Dratte claimed that New York State Psychiatric Institute officials repeatedly shrugged off her complaints about sexual harassment by a co-worker because she was his ex-lover.

The New York State Office of Mental Health is picking up the tab for Dratte’s federal lawsuit because Columbia University runs the New York State Psychiatric Institute under its auspices. 

Dratte alleged that after she broke up with Kwame El he harassed her for years, saying “you have a pretty little pussy” and “all women want me because I am a big black man.”

El also made sexually laden anti-Semitic remarks to another co-worker, the lawsuit says.

But Institute officials either ignored protests about El or just shuffled him between posts, according to the lawsuit.

Dratte and El, who both worked as aides at the New York State Psychiatric Institute’s Audobon Clinic, an outpatient facility in Washington Heights, started dating in 1997.

After Dratte got pregnant and had an abortion, she dumped El in 1998. The harassment allegedly ensued almost immediately.

Dratte first notified her supervisors about El in 1999 but they pooh-poohed her concerns. Dr. Stephanie Lemelle “simply told plaintiff that she (Plaintiff) had been in a relationship with Kwame El and ‘should know how he is.’”

In 2001, after El exposed his penis to Dratte she complained to a different supervisor, Dr Pelligrino Sarti. El was transferred to another clinic. But in 2003 he was sent back to the Audobon Clinic.

After another employee filed a sexual harassment complaint against him in 2005 El was again transferred to a different clinic.

He returned to Audobon Clinic in 2007 and again tormented Dratte, saying, “You should have never have killed my baby.”

The lawsuit claims that El “would also make sexually harassing remarks about other female employees.”

In 2012, he allegedly told Dratte that another co-worker, Laura Panitz, “needs to be fucked” because she is Jewish.

Dratte and Panitz complained to Audobon Clinic director Jean Marie Bradford. But she told Dratte to just deal with it because of her previous relationship with El, the lawsuit says.

Dratte also complained to New York State Psychiatric Institute clinical director David Lowenthal but he did nothing to “remedy the harassment and/or prevent future harassment.”

Dratte sued the New York State Psychiatric Institute late last year for discrimination based on gender and creating a hostile work environment.  

The case was settled on April 30, 2014. The settlement has not been reported elsewhere, according to Google.

New York State Office of Mental Health spokesman Benjamin Rosen told the Daily Caller that El has been suspended without pay pending an investigation. “The Office of Mental Health has a zero tolerance policy against sexual harassment in the workplace. All allegations of sexual harassment are investigated and appropriate actions are taken in response, up to and including termination.”  

New York State Psychiatric Institute director Jeffrey Lieberman and clinical director David Lowenthal did not respond to requests for comment.

Erica Shnayder, the lawyer for Dratte, did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Twitter: @EvanGahr

Monday, May 12, 2014

Chuck Lane's Official Washington Post Head Shot

Evan Gahr was  a press critic for the late New York Post editorial page editor Eric Breindel.

Lloyd Grove, who has done many items on Gahr's scoops, dubbed him a Washington gadfly.  

Twitter: @EvanGahr

Friday, May 09, 2014

Exclusive: Washington Post Settles Lawsuit

This is adapted from Washington City Paper.

The Washington Post fancies itself the friend of the working man—at least until he actually toils on behalf of the Washington Post. 

The House that the Grahams built late last month settled a lawsuit filed by an independent contractor who claimed the Post welched on its promise to refund unsold copies of the paper he bought for distribution to individual copy retailers such as CVS.

Maryland resident Ricardo Smith said that the Washington Post also reneged on this assurance to approximately 60 other independent contractors just like him.

A federal judge had given Smith the green light to pursue a class action lawsuit on their behalf. But the settlement pre-empts that claim.

Attorney Amy Pierce, who defends companies against class action lawsuits, that it is possible the Washington Post paid to settle Smith’s individual claim to avoid the “risk” of being engulfed in a full-fledged class action lawsuit.

So this could be the only time the Washington Post has frowned upon class warfare!

Terms of the settlement, filed April 24 with United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit, are confidential.

But the lawsuit allegations and other publicly available documents provide an interesting window into the kind of Washington Post labor practices that the paper normally labels exploitative when done by anyone else.
Yes, the paper which just paid publisher Katherine Weymouth $2.7 million in bonuses on top of her 479,688 salary, quibbles over pocket change with men and women who hawk its wares.

Is this what the Washington Post means with all their seemingly endless articles about income inequality?
But more than penny pinching may be at issue here: Properly refunding or crediting unsold copies of the paper would have reduced Washington Post circulation figures. 

By refusing returns the papers remained officially “sold” even though they were really not. The lawsuit claims that for years the Post failed to properly “record and account for Plaintiff’s returned Newspapers.”         
Smith’s lawsuit says that when he started distributing the Post in 2002 the paper “promised Plaintiffs to refund the purchase price of Newspapers that were not sold by retailers that Plaintiffs returned ‘in any week.’” 

The contract required both sides to approve any changes. 

But in 2008, the Post “repeatedly and unilaterally” imposed shorter deadlines for returns (legal papers don’t specify the new cut-off time). With the goal posts moved again and again for Smith and his colleagues the Post failed to “appropriately credit or pay” them for papers they returned.” 

Smith worked for the Washington Post from 2002 to 2011.  

According to his lawsuit, independent contractors also purchased from the Post distribution center copies of USA Today, the New York Times and the New York Daily News.

It is well to note that relying on independent contractors to distribute copies of the paper to retailers is a cost-cutting measure for the very paper that normally scowls at efforts by businesses and local and state governments to reduce burdensome labor costs. 

Indeed, the paper’s celebrated WonkBlog complained just the other week wrote that independent contractors“have emerged all over the economy, from cheerleaders  to construction workers. Personnel not covered by unemployment insurance made up 23.5 percent of their workforce in 2010 up from 19 percent in 2001. Companies often try to classify their workers as independent, even if they’re not, to avoid taxes and weaken unions.”

But the Post’s own independent contractors were omitted from the piece, the second one in little more than a month to claim independent contractors elsewhere get shafted.

It is well to note that as the Post opinion and news pages (which are often hard to differentiate) agitate for a higher minimum wage
 the Post does not even give any wage to the men and women essential to its business.

Moreover, as independent contractors, men like Smith also get no health insurance from the Washington Post. Quite ironic given that the paper supported the Obamacare edict that companies provide it to their employees.   

Think about it: the Washington Post essentially farms out a key component of its labor force. The independent contractors who buy the papers in turn hire people to help distribute them. That leaves these agents-—not the Washington Post—on the hook for related costs, such as payroll taxes and unemployment insurance.

All of these issues might make a good story for the Washington Post, especially because the legal maneuverings over Smith’s case dragged on for nearly 18 months.

Smith filed his lawsuit on October 26, 2012.  The Post responded on December 17, 2012 with a motion to dismiss the case or, alternatively, strike the class action claim. The Post also denied they had unilaterally changed the terms of    their contract with Smith and other independent agents.

A round of replies and counter-replies ensued.

Finally, on August 28, 2013, Federal Judge Royce Lamberth rejected the motion by the Washington Post to dismiss the lawsuit or “strike” the class action claim. Lamberth, a Ronald Reagan appointee, ruled that Smith could seek “class certification” for his fellow independent contractors.

With depositions and discovery looming, the Washington Post then convinced Lamberth to seal discovery material on November 6. 2013.

Mull that over for a moment.

The Washington Post fancies itself quite the public servant because they reveal secret NSA programs, even though the disclosures leave this country more vulnerable to terrorism. But its lawyer then enlists the government to keep its own business information under wraps.

The newsroom also helped out.

This reporter asked Washington Post media reporter Paul Farhi and media blogger Erik Wemple, who both refuse to report on the ongoing race discrimination lawsuit against the paper,
if they wanted to cover “another lawsuit” against their employer.

No response.

You would have thought they would at least have inquired about the nature of the lawsuit before deciding to skip it. For all they knew it could have been about nuclear waste being stockpiled in the Washington Post newsroom.

But, apparently not.  

Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron and Washington Post managing editor Kevin Merida did not respond to requests for comment.

Washington Post spokeswoman Kristine Coratti ignored repeated inquiries.

Washington Post vice president for circulation Gregg Fernandes would not take this reporter's call and did not respond to an email.

Twitter: @EvanGahr

Monday, April 28, 2014

Alice Walker runs away from Evan Gahr

- The Daily Caller - -
Novelist Alice Walker: I Don’t Know Who Did 9/11
Posted By Evan Gahr On 9:20 AM 04/28/2014 In | No Comments
Novelist Alice Walker professed ignorance last week about who perpetrated the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.
Walker, a vociferous critic of Israel, also refused to say if Hamas is a terrorist organization.
This reporter caught up with Walker when she spoke at an April 24 New York University conference on leftist historian Howard Zinn.
The following is the exchange with the literary doyenne, who gained worldwide fame with her 1982 novel “The Color Purple”:
Reporter: Do you think Hamas is a terrorist organization?
Alice Walker: I don’t know.
Reporter: Well, when they blow up Jews on Israeli buses, is that terrorism?
Walker: I don’t know. I was not there. You’re all dressed up. Why are you wearing a tie?
Reporter: Because this is a formal occasion. Do you think 9/11 was an act of terrorism?
Walker: Yes. But I don’t know who did it. Do you?
Reporter: Yeah, the 9/11 hijackers. Do you think the government did it?
Walker: I don’t know.
Reporter: Back to Hamas. Do you think they are a terrorist organization?
Walker, normally quite loquacious, then walked away.
But Walker has previously indicated that she thought Osama bin Laden was responsible.
As war loomed in Afghanistan just weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks, Walker told the Village Voice that the United States should shower bin Laden with love instead of invading his host country. She said the attacks should be considered in the context of his good deeds.
“In a war on Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden will either be left alive, while thousands of impoverished, frightened people are bombed into oblivion around him, or he will be killed in a bombing attack for which he seems quite prepared.
“But what would happen to his cool armor if he could be reminded of all the good, nonviolent things he has done? Further, what would happen to him if he could be brought to understand the preciousness of the lives he has destroyed? I firmly believe the only punishment that works is love.”
Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, who accused Walker of “bigotry” in 2012 when she refused to allow the translation of The Color Purple into Hebrew, told The Daily Caller that Walker had good reason to be so tongue-tied.
“She is afraid to be challenged on her bigoted views. She’s terrified of answering questions lest there be a follow up,” Dershowitz said.

Article printed from The Daily Caller:
URL to article:
Copyright © 2011 Daily Caller. All rights reserv

Page Six on Evan Gahr's Herman Cain ED story

Herman Cain’s Cain TV advertises help for erectile dysfunction

Some followers of Herman Cain were surprised when they received an e-mail from the former presidential hopeful’s Cain TV with an ad exclaiming, “If you are a man over 40 who has lost his performance ability . . . it’s NOT your fault!” The e-mail promised a “special one-time only ‘webinar’ about erectile dysfunction to “get your manhood MOJO back.” Said DC blogger Evan Gahr in a post: “Cain . . . has devolved into a snake oil salesman for the one-eyed snake.” Cain media division head Dan Calabrese told us: “It’s my responsibility . . . to approve ads that our list broker gives us . . . and as long as it represents a legitimate product, I approve the ads. It’s not a product I would use but I saw no reason it should not be advertised.”

Sunday, April 20, 2014

Washington Post Reporter Caught with Hand in ACLU Cookie Jar


Washington Post scribe Barton Gellman, a conduit for the classified material that Edward Snowden pilfered from the National Security Agency, abruptly declined an award he had agreed to receive from the American Civil Liberties Union after this reporter inquired about the obvious impropriety of being honored by an organization he covers.

Of course, only a journalist who fancies himself a political player and not an independent observer would have ever agreed to accept an award from an advocacy organization in the first place.

Gellman was to receive the award, along with Glenn Greenwald and film maker Laura Poitras, at the April 23 “Bill of Rights” fundraising dinner of the ACLU’s Washington regional office.

It was Poitras who introduced Snowden to Gellman. 

Greenwald was slated to accept the award via videotape on behalf of his two fellow Edward Snowden handlers. 

The ACLU, which Gellman often quotes uncritically, is enamored of Gellman because he used information provided by Snowden to expose for the Washington Post some of the National Security Agency’s hitherto secret electronic surveillance programs.

The Washington Post just won a Pulitzer Prize for its stories on the NSA by Gellman and other reporters.

The ACLU and some conservatives say the programs are illegal and a fundamental threat to American freedoms.

In an April 4 email blast to supporters the ACLU of the Nation’s Capital said Gellman along with Glenn Greenwald and film maker Laura Poitras, co-author of Gellman’s story that divulged the NSA’s internet data mining program would get an award named for the late Henry Edgerton, a liberal federal appeals court judge. 

In one of his best known decisions Edgerton joined a Washington, DC appellate court ruling that upheld the decision by a district court judge to dismiss the perjury conviction of China “scholar” Owen Lattimore,  a notorious Communist propagandist.

The program for our dinner includes videotaped remarks from Rio de Janeiro by courageous journalist Glenn Greenwald, who will be accepting our Henry W. Edgerton Civil Liberties Award on behalf of Barton Gellman, Laura Poitras and himself,”  the ACLU announced triumphantly.

Former New York Times public editor Arthur Brisbane said that it would be foolhardy for a journalist to accept an award from an advocacy group he covers. “If the award is coming from an organization you are covering it’s a mistake to accept it. You’re not demonstrating sufficient independence.”

Like a polished diplomat Brisbane emphasized that he was talking about the issue in general and did not know the specifics of the Gellman matter. Was his reticence due to the fact that Brisbane had worked at the Washington Post with Gellman?

Left-leaning NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen also closed ranks behind Gellman. Rosen, who worked briefly as a journalist in 1978  but has spent the ensuing decades explaining to reporters how they can be as morally upright as him, declined comment.

Before abruptly hanging up, however,  Rosen explained that he would not talk to me because I write for conservative publications.

Three cheers for guilt by association.

But Dick Wald, who was in charge of broadcast standards for ABC News, told this reporter that he saw nothing wrong with journalists getting awards from advocacy organizations. "All organizations are advocacy organizations," he said. 

Asked if that included the Pulitzer Prize Committee he said emphatically, "Yes."  
As for Gellman, when contacted for this article he steadfastly denied any sort of ethical problem.

Curiously, just hours after the ACLU had announced it was giving him an award Gellman insisted he was not really getting an award from the ACLU.

“I don't go around accepting or rejecting awards,” Gellman contended. “I'm not in the business of denouncing people.”

Gellman claimed that “nothing says I'm accepting the award.”

Reminded that the ACLU email, which Gellman said he had read, declared that Greenwald would accept the award for him and Poitras the investigative journalist insisted that was a “mistake.”

Pressed further Gellman ended the phone call.

“I think we’re done,” he said. “Goodbye.”

Gellman then emailed a few minutes later to say he just told the ACLU to correct its supposed error about Greenwald accepting the award for him.  

The Washington Post veteran, who wrote an entire book complaining that Dick Cheney is overly secretive, refused to answer follow-up questions.

But Art Spitzer,  legal director of the ACLU of the Nation’s Capital, told this reporter that Gellman knew full well he was getting the award. Gellman “initially agreed to be one of the recipients of our award, and we included his name on the invitations” to its shindig at the National Press Club,” Spitzer explained.  

The day after Gellman bagged on them the ACLU sheepishly announced that although they “wanted to give the Henry W. Edgerton Civil Liberties Award to courageous journalist Bart Gellman, he stated that he wants to maintain his professional distance from organizations he covers. He respectfully declines to accept the award.”

Spitzer said for this article that Gellman “had second thoughts about accepting an award from an organization that's an advocate on many of the issues he covers. We respect his decision.”

Should these “second thoughts” have been first thoughts?

Asked about the matter Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron tried to pretend that Gellman never agreed to receive the award. 

Baron said that “Bart didn’t seek the award and is not accepting it.” 

Uh, actually, “Bart” was prepared to accept it until I raised the issue.

Saying Gellman “didn’t seek the award” is a distinction without a difference. 

Baron sounded like someone caught with his hand in the cookie jar who sheepishly says, “I didn’t seek these cookies and am not taking them.” 

Baron did not respond to a follow-up email asking if he thought the determination of the ACLU to give Gellman an award showed his coverage was wildly skewed in their favor.

Evan Gahr, a former press critic for the late New York Post editorial page editor Eric Breindel, has also written about the media for the Wall Street Journal, National Review, the Weekly Standard and the American Spectator. Twitter:@EvanGahr
Update: ACLU emails response to story.