After reading the material about the Conrad Black trial I must say I am ambivalent about the whole affair. One cannot go by the media reports. And I wish not to succumb my brain to the personal agendas of these biased reporters.
If one read only one report from either the Toronto Sun (and Sun Media) or the Toronto Star one gets a rather biased viewpoint. The Black trial fertilized a subtext of political bias or simple bias in every report.
Jennifer Wells (The Star) interpretation of events often varies from the Mary Vallis (Sun Media/Canada.com) interpretation. Yes its the same facts appear the same but did they go to the same trial clearly noticeably when they broach neutrality into the realm of opinion.
One needs to read both to get a sense of how the real trial is moving. At no time does the bias leave the interpretation of events. Understandably Conservative papers such as Sun Media cheer Black's defense. The Liberal papers cheer Black's prosecutors.
In the Star it can be understood that Eddie Greenspan, the primary defense attorney for Conrad Black, simply sucked. While Sun media and the National Post tended make Eddie Greenspan out like the reincarnation of Clarence Darrow. Which is it?
And here is the problem and the irony. It had been Conrad Black's an Radler's efforts to trim costs and extract every dime out of the newspapers operations. They literally led in the layoffs of many good reporters. What was left was a group of reporters very susceptible to political and personal bias. No middle ground appears to exist.
I know for a fact that Conrad Black is not as a hard assed character as he appears in the press. Neither is Barbara Amiel for she suffers from some really biased press. Lets put it this way. Their marriage has stuck together through some very tough times recently. Many a woman would have done the Adios on Black by this time. So to her credit and as corny as it sounds... it is true; she's stuck by her man.
On Victoria Street just north of King Street in Toronto just to the south of the parking lot for 10 Toronto Street, I used to start the day with a breakfast and a coffee. A maintenance person of that building also cleared the snow for 10 Toronto's lot contracted by Lord Black himself. His view of Black private character was quite opposite to that spun out by the media on both sides.
The Conrad Black he knew, the one not doing business, not putting out a public face was a quite friendly down to earth fellow. He is a totally different character out of the lime light of work or politique. This is quite the opposite character portrayal in the media whether friendly or not. It is quite the opposite from the wordy almost arrogant persona he displays in public view.
One must remember that Radler had been his closest friend and confidante outside of the spouse in Black's life. Apart from the morality of the play, in essence Radler appears a traitor not to a nation but to a long friendship. On the trial coverage the Liberal view is that Radler lied, to the Conservative Radler is a liar. This is a subtle but important difference.
The Conservatives brought this on themselves. In the mid 1980s the biggest complaint was that all the media possessed a Liberal bias. Despite that declaration one cannot help but note that conservative governments got elected.
The greatest fear of the Conservative was never the openly Liberal biased reporter. The greatest fear of the Liberal was never the openly Conservative biased reporter. Both sides absolutely detested the neutral reporter who reported only the facts. They are the most dangerous. They can't be co-opted ethically. They report the truth. As a result both sides assailed the 5th estate so that in today's journalism schools bias is okay.
Neutral, politically indifferent reporters have been completely purged from the media. Without that severe neutrality, court reporting emerges as inaccurate. The clash of the courtroom must be reported in a neutral reportage. Bias loses accuracy.
Having reported and written on several trials and commission hearings I can honestly say that what happens in court almost never is successfully reflected in the reportage. Editors almost always want an angle or slant to every article. The only goal of a trial judge is the truth. The goal of the reporter is a good story. A false story is always better a tale than the real factual truth. And any journalists writes in a way to maneuver that story as close as possible to the front page as possible. The story's position headline and prominence is entirely determined by the editor.
In the case of Conrad Black I am trying to understand the course of the trial by reading a variety of sources. I still get no sense of the real Conrad Black, the one that the snow clearing maintenance guy once related. And I tend to trust that guy's evaluations before the evaluations of today's journalist.
Mr. or rather Lord Black did some rather ethically challenging business deals. None of which has been successfully identified as clearly illegal under the law. Under Canadian tax law, the maneuver of non-compete fees is so unique that there is no law yet against that. The prosecutors have lined up the charge sheet with an array of charges clearly the most of which Black is not guilty of. In Canada Black was not even charged with the removal of those storage boxes even though it was either a case of court contempt or adventurous gambit.
Here is the problem with the trial's star witness. Radler fessed up in exchange for a sweetheart sentence. This is acceptable and common practice in today's justice world in the US and in Canada (e.g. Karla Homolka plea bargain). Despite the fact that he plead guilty doesn't mean that the actions the others took was not factually illegal.
The shareholders of the American version of Hollinger accused these executive of seconding the money despite the fact that it was the same shareholders voted for these executive year after year and in every annual meeting before. And this despite the fact that the same shareholders made a lot of money on the sales of the newspapers too. No one lost money or had their pockets picked. The only question is that the shareholders wanted even more money.
Indeed as the information gleaned from the trial indicates that KPMG and the company lawyers in Toronto state that as far as they knew, these non-compete payments were quite okay. According to all the testimonies to date, the payments were legal but all the advisers consistently advised that the payments be kept fairly out of public knowledge.
The audit committee on the Board of Directors passed the reports. If there had been an objection to the payment fees then that should have been the time to bring it forward. While individual members of the Board of Directors may not have individually recalled such disclosures it was incumbent on the directors to also seek out that information if it related to the higher levels of company decisions. In short, they may not have done their jobs.
Over the years I rather think that Black has put himself into a mask that he cannot throw off. One can get the sense that if Black does testify he will suffer the same sort of withering and astute cross examinations by the prosecuting attorneys that Radler endured with the parade of defense attorneys. In every other trial Black was his own worst witness. Unlike the short version of answers demanded of Radler, Black will be encourage to answer in the long form. And it is common knowledge that publicly Black's rhetoric remains rather long and colorful.
Indeed the only question remaining is whether or not Black takes the stand in his own defense. And here is where it is important to actually be in a court room. If you actually sit in the whole proceedings one quickly sees why a trial will course to a conclusion. The question is whether this jury expects to hear from Black. If not. And they want to go home. He then is protected.
If the jury sets its final judgment related to Black's failure to take the stand, then he may lose. If they don't care. Black will likely walk free. If he does testify, to win he must drop his knightly persona and simply be a straight up guy.
