Articles by admin

No Image

Consequences Of The U.S. Deficit

The U.S. deficit is set to reach a record $1 trillion. NPR’s Leila Fadel speaks with Michael Peterson of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group.



LEILA FADEL, HOST:

The U.S. budget deficit is ballooning, headed to over a trillion dollars by 2020 according to projections just released by the Congressional Budget Office. Why? Tax cuts and increased government spending, plus tariffs dragging down economic growth. Michael Peterson is CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group.

Welcome.

MICHAEL PETERSON: Thank you very much.

FADEL: So what does that mean for, for example, a young American just starting her career? How will a trillion-dollar deficit affect her?

PETERSON: Well, the deficit places a burden on the next generation. So we already have $22 trillion of debt on our books today and this has driven – the most important being demographics. We have a very significant baby boom generation that’s just beginning to enter retirement. And when they retire, they come out of the workforce and stop paying in and go into the retirement system and start taking out. So each one of them sort of is a double whammy. So what happens when you have a huge level of debt like this is that it comes with an interest burden. So today, we’re paying a billion dollars a day in interest.

FADEL: Oh, wow.

PETERSON: And that’s a billion dollars that can’t go into something else. It can’t go into a safety net program or an investment or international defense, or it’s a billion dollars that we need to collect from our citizens that we wouldn’t otherwise have had to.

FADEL: Now, your work is really dedicated to getting politicians to pay attention to this debt. Is it working?

PETERSON: Well, I would say they’re certainly not paying enough attention. We’re in this situation due to a significant lack of leadership and lack of fiscal responsibility. The truth is the vast majority of Democrats and the vast majority of Republicans want our politicians to spend more time addressing this issue because they may not understand all the effects and all the different numbers, but they know it’s not a good thing for them and their future and their kids and grandkids.

FADEL: These two parties have really different economic approaches. How do you talk to both parties and how do you appeal to them to focus on what you think is so important in this debt?

PETERSON: This is too big a challenge for any one party to take and solve on their own. I don’t think any party would ever do that. And even if they did, it probably wouldn’t last. So it’s the classic type of problem where we all need to come together and solve it. And I think there are strong arguments on both sides of the aisle in favor of addressing this.

So if you’re a progressive and you care about the safety net or you care about inequality or you care about climate change or infrastructure, having this debt burden makes it more difficult to tackle all of those issues because there’s just less resources available for these programs.

If you’re on the conservative side and more for limited government, you know, we have a $365 billion interest tab this year – that’s a billion dollars a day – will be exclusively used to pay interest. So that’s theoretically more taxes than we would need to burden our citizens with. So, again, whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, having more debt is not helpful.

FADEL: That’s Michael Peterson. He heads the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

Thank you so much.

PETERSON: Thank you very much.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Former U.S. Commerce Secretary Says Trade War Steeped In ‘Emotion And Antagonism’

American business owners weigh in on the most recent escalation in the U.S.-China trade war.



MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

As we have said, trade tensions between the U.S. and China have been building, so from time to time, we’ve been checking in with representatives of different kinds of businesses to hear how it’s been affecting them. We’ve called back a few of them to hear how they’re responding to the most recent developments.

First, Alex Logemann. He works for a bicycle industry coalition.

ALEX LOGEMANN: I am Alex Logemann. I am policy counsel at the PeopleForBikes coalition. What was most recently announced is essentially just making a bad problem worse for the bicycle industry. About 93% of complete bicycles are imported from China, so it is a massive source of production for the bicycle industry. And to try and move the production of that many millions of bicycles is extremely complicated. You know, everybody’s having to re-examine their sourcing, but you can’t shift that kind of volume overnight, even for brands that are interested in trying to bring assembly or production jobs back to the U.S. They can’t do it with these tariffs in place.

JOHN BOYD: I am John Boyd, founder and president of the National Black Farmers Association. The new retaliatory tariffs are going to be devastating for America’s farmers and especially soybean farmers such as myself. More farmers will end up filing bankruptcy because they really just can’t sell their crops this year for $8 a bushel. And the administration and the Ag Department has not opened up new markets for American farmers, and that’s what’s killing us right now. We want the Trump administration to understand the last thing that you want to gamble with in America is America’s farmers.

TIM BOYLE: My name is Tim Boyle. I’m the president and CEO of Columbia Sportswear Company, an apparel and footwear company based in Portland, Ore. The new tariffs, frankly, are a slap in the face to Americans. Columbia Sportswear is a global company. We have – 40% of our sales are outside the U.S. So to the extent we can mitigate the price increases caused by these taxes-slash-tariffs, we’ll do that. But we’re going to have to raise our prices.

We have a great relationship with China. We – in addition to sourcing products there, we also sell products there. It’s one of our most important markets. For a suggestion to be made that the U.S. should or even could not do business with the second-largest economy in the world is absolutely lunacy.

MARTIN: That was Tim Boyle, the president and CEO of Columbia Sportswear, John Wesley Boyd, president of the Black Farmers Association (ph), and Alex Logemann, policy counsel at PeopleForBikes coalition.

(SOUNDBITE OF MF DOOM’S “LICORICE”)

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Opinion: We Are Risking Health And Life

A sign for Flu Shots at a CVS Pharmacy in Boston.

Rick Friedman/Corbis via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Rick Friedman/Corbis via Getty Images

It’s flu shot season. Signs alerting and urging you to get a flu shot now may be up at your pharmacy or workplace. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends everyone over 6 months old get a flu shot by the end of October, so the vaccine can begin to work before the influenza season begins.

But this week, U.S. Customs and Border Protection said it would not give flu shots to the thousands of migrants now in its detention centers.

“Due to the short-term nature of CBP holding and the complexities of operating vaccination programs,” the agency said in a statement, “neither CBP nor its medical contractors administer vaccinations to those in our custody.”

Dr. Bruce Y. Lee of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health called the department’s edict, “short-term thinking.”

“Holding a number of unvaccinated people in a crowded space could be like maintaining an amusement park for flu viruses,” he wrote for Forbes. He explains that viruses could spread through the congested, often cold, and unsanitary detention camps, and get passed between those people who’ve been detained — weak, tired and dusty — as well as those who work there.

Viruses spread. They cannot be “detained,” like people.

During a particularly brutal flu season two years ago, the CDC estimated about 80,000 people, including 600 children, died across the U.S. after being infected by influenza. Last season’s flu set records for its length — lasting 21 weeks.

On Aug. 1, a group of six physicians from Johns Hopkins and the MassGeneral Hospital for Children wrote a letter to members of Congress in which they said at least three children infected with influenza have died in U.S. custody since December of 2018.

The children were 2, 8 and 16. They were named Wilmer, Felipe and Carlos.

The doctors advised Congress, “During the influenza season, vaccination should be offered to all detainees promptly upon arrival in order to maximize protection for the youngest and most vulnerable detainees.”

This week I read of the government’s determination not to give seasonal flu shots to migrants in detention centers and had to ask: What possible good will this do? Is it worth the risk to health and life? And what does this policy say about America?

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Saturday Sports: College Football, Carli Lloyd

Football season is nearly here, and the Cleveland Browns are looking good.



SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

And time now for sports.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

SIMON: The 78-game winning streak comes to an end. Football season about to begin. Will it include Carli Lloyd of U.S. women’s soccer on the field and new calls over the dangers on the gridiron?

NPR’s Tom Goldman joins us. Good morning, Tom.

TOM GOLDMAN, BYLINE: Good morning, Scott.

SIMON: And down under, the Australian national basketball team defeated the U.S. men’s basketball team 98-94 last night. The spirit of Luc Longley abides. Now, this…

GOLMAN: Luc.

SIMON: This…

GOLMAN: Luc (laughter).

SIMON: This is the first U.S. loss since 2006 – a warmup game. But some of the best basketball players in the world these days are from outside the U.S., so we can no longer assume U.S. – you know what I mean – can we?

GOLMAN: Goodness (laughter). We cannot. Hey, some exhibition, Scott. Fifty-two thousand people were at the game in Melbourne. How about that? First time Australia beat the U.S. in men’s basketball. This was a warmup for the upcoming World Cup.

A lot of the top NBA stars have pulled out of the competition. This is a huge NBA season coming up, as you know, with everyone assuming the league is wide open with all the crazy player movement and Golden State finally being vulnerable. So a lot of the top stars want to get their rest and be ready. But Scott, no excuse – Australia beat U.S. fair and square. And yeah, the World Cup victory is not a lock – going to be fun to watch.

SIMON: Official beginning of Division I college football season today. Clemson, Bama, blah, blah, blah. And what about Boise State?

GOLMAN: (Laughter). Your mighty Broncos in their blue turf. They haven’t cracked the top 25 in the preseason polls, but…

SIMON: I noticed.

GOLMAN: …Those are preseason polls. And at the end, they may be in the thick of things. Most likely, though, it will be blah, blah, blah – Clemson, Alabama – throw Georgia in the mix, too. And what is a certainty – count on fans who are sick of the usual suspects to clamor, once again, for more than four teams in the season-ending playoff.

SIMON: Carli Lloyd, one of the stars of the U.S. women’s soccer team, drilled a 55-yard field goal this week in a video that went viral. Can the NFL ignore someone who can kick a 55-yard field goal?

GOLMAN: Well, it shouldn’t. I mean, you know, Lloyd obviously has a live right leg. She’s proved that over and over for the U.S. women’s national team. Now, nailing a 55-yarder in practice certainly is different from having a bunch of huge people screaming toward you, trying to block the kick during a game. But – and you pointed this out earlier, Scott – she knows pressure.

SIMON: Yeah.

GOLMAN: She’s seen it all. And pressure is such an enemy of placekickers in the NFL.

SIMON: This week, Robert Cantu, who’s a neurosurgeon, Mark Hyman, a professor of sports management, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post that urges the U.S. surgeon general to issue a warning about the dangers of tackle football for youngsters. I read this at your recommendation – a very compelling and important piece, I thought.

GOLMAN: Very much so. A reminder, as football season gets under way, that it’s still dangerous for younger kids to play tackle because of the repeated hits to the head. Cantu and Hyman note football and all sports have gotten safer due to the increased awareness about head injuries. But they cite studies showing the earlier kids play tackle and start getting those smaller subconcussive head hits that add up over a career, the earlier the onset of cognitive and mood and behavioral problems for the ones who are affected. Not all football players are affected, obviously.

Now, while the authors say high school football is still very popular, there is evidence that youth participation is declining. And an interesting note, Scott – new numbers by the Sports and Fitness Industry Association say participation by kids in baseball and softball went up by nearly 3 million between 2013 and 2018.

SIMON: Good – baseball. Tom Goldman, thanks so much.

GOLMAN: You’re welcome.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

President Trump Announces Higher Tariffs On Goods From China

President Trump has ordered higher tariffs on Chinese imports, in another escalation of the trade war between the world’s two biggest economies.



AILSA CHANG, HOST:

Chinese imports will be getting more expensive this fall. President Trump announced late today that he’s boosting tariff rates on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese goods. It’s another sharp escalation in the two countries’ tit-for-tat trade war. News of these higher tariffs came after what was already a rocky day on Wall Street. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost more than 600 points or 2 1/3 percent while the S&P 500 fell more than 2.5%. For more on all of this, we are joined now by NPR’s Scott Horsley.

Hey, Scott.

SCOTT HORSLEY, BYLINE: Hi, Ailsa.

CHANG: So why did the president boost these tariff rates tonight?

HORSLEY: China fired a shot across the bow this morning when they announced new tariffs on some $75 billion worth of American goods, including cars. And the president was not happy about that. He couldn’t look for new Chinese products to hit with tariffs because we’re already adding taxes to just about everything the U.S. buys from China. So instead, the president announced that he’s going to raise the tariff rate.

CHANG: Ah.

HORSLEY: Imports that were subject to a 25% tariff will now face a 30% tariff starting in October. Goods that were being taxed at 10% will see the tariff go up to 15%. But here’s the thing. The White House is calling this retaliation for China’s tariffs. China says its tariffs were retaliation for the tariffs that President Trump announced…

CHANG: (Laughter).

HORSLEY: …Back on August 1. The administration always seems surprised when other countries respond to its protectionist actions with tariffs of their own. You’d think they’d kind of get the hang of this because we’ve gone through this cycle several times now.

CHANG: You’d think they would. All right. The president also had, like, a pretty extraordinary series of tweets earlier today. He insisted that U.S. companies stop relying on China for products. What did he say in those tweets?

HORSLEY: Yeah. We’ve seen a lot of provocative tweets from this president over the years, but today’s tweet storm was still jaw-dropping. He began by complaining about the trade deficit with China – nothing new there. But then the president invoked some powers he doesn’t actually have and tweeted, our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China, including bringing your companies home and making your products in the U.S.A. Now, the U.S. is still a free-market economy. The president…

CHANG: Yeah.

HORSLEY: …For all his powers, does not get to dictate to companies where they buy their products. But this is the tweet storm that sent the stock market reeling.

CHANG: But why were investors so rattled by those tweets if the president can’t actually order companies to move their production away from China?

HORSLEY: Two things – one, it signaled another escalation in the trade war. And sure enough, that materialized after the market closed, when the president formally announced these higher tariff rates. Secondly, it’s just another sign of the kind of haphazard policymaking we’ve been seeing from the White House all week. One day, they’re calling for a payroll tax cut. The next, they say that’s off the table. One day, the vice president’s bragging about the greatest economy in history. Another day, the president’s saying the economy needs a dramatic rescue from the Federal Reserve. Financial markets don’t like uncertainty. And they’re minting a lot of uncertainty at the White House these days.

CHANG: Yeah. The Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell talked about that today in Jackson Hole. What did he have to say?

HORSLEY: He did. Powell was addressing an annual conference of central bankers. And he said, in a lot of ways, the economy’s doing well. Folks who’ve been on the sidelines are finally kind of starting to enjoy the fruits of the recovery. But he did say uncertainty around trade policy creates some unusual challenges for the Fed, and the president didn’t like that. He’s been haranguing Powell and his colleagues to be more aggressive in cutting interest rates. He’s insulted the Fed chairman a lot, even talking about his golf game.

CHANG: (Laughter).

HORSLEY: And those insults continued on Twitter today.

CHANG: That’s NPR’s Scott Horsley.

Thanks, Scott.

HORSLEY: You’re welcome.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Wyoming Wants To Use Medicaid To Reduce Air Ambulance Bills For All Patients

In rugged, rural areas, patients often have little choice about how they’ll get to the hospital in an emergency. “The presence of private equity in the air ambulance industry indicates that investors see profit opportunities,” a 2017 report from the federal Government Accountability Office notes.

pidjoe/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

pidjoe/Getty Images

Wyoming, which is among the reddest of Republican states and a bastion of free enterprise, thinks it may have found a way to end crippling air ambulance bills that sometimes top $100,000 per flight.

The state’s unexpected solution: Undercut the free market, by using Medicaid to treat air ambulances like a public utility.

Costs for such emergency transports have been soaring, with some patients facing massive, unexpected bills as the free-flying air ambulance industry expands with cash from profit-seeking private-equity investors. The issue has come to a head in Wyoming, where rugged terrain and long distances between hospitals forces reliance on these ambulance flights.

Other states have tried to rein in the industry, but have continually run up against the Airline Deregulation Act, a federal law that preempts states from regulating any part of the air industry.

So, Wyoming officials are instead seeking federal approval to funnel all medical air transportation in the state through Medicaid, a joint federal-state program for residents with lower incomes. The state officials plan to submit their proposal in late September to Medicaid’s parent agency, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; the plan will still face significant hurdles there.

If successful, however, the Wyoming approach could be a model for the nation, protecting patients in need of a lifesaving service from being devastated by a life-altering debt.

“The free market has sort of broken down. It’s not really working effectively to balance cost against access,” says Franz Fuchs, a policy analyst for the Wyoming Department of Health. “Patients and consumers really can’t make informed decisions and vote with their dollars on price and quality.”

Freewheeling free market system

The air ambulance industry has grown steadily in the U.S., from about 1,100 aircraft in 2007 to more than 1,400 in 2018. During that same time, the fleet in Wyoming has grown from three aircraft to 14. State officials say an oversupply of helicopters and planes is driving up prices, because air bases have high fixed overhead costs. Fuchs says companies must pay for aircraft, staffing and technology, such as night-vision goggles and flight simulators — incurring 85% of their total costs before they fly a single patient.

But with the supply of aircraft outpacing demand, each air ambulance is flying fewer patients. Nationally, air ambulances have gone from an average of 688 flights per aircraft in 1990, as reported by Bloomberg, to 352 in 2016. So, companies have raised their prices to cover their fixed costs and to seek healthy returns for their investors.

A 2017 report from the federal Government Accountability Office notes that the three largest air ambulance operators are for-profit companies with a growing private equity investment. “The presence of private equity in the air ambulance industry indicates that investors see profit opportunities in the industry,” the report says.

While precise data on air ambulance costs is sparse, a 2017 industry report says air ambulance companies spend an average of $11,000 per flight. In Wyoming, Medicare pays an average of $6,000 per flight, and Medicaid pays even less. So air ambulance companies shift the remaining costs — and then some — to patients who have private insurance or are paying out-of-pocket.

As that cost-shifting increases, insurers and air ambulance companies haven’t been able to agree on in-network rates. So the services are left out of insurance plans.

When a consumer needs a flight, it’s billed as an out-of-network service. Air ambulance companies then can charge whatever they want. If the insurer pays part of the bill, the air ambulance company can still bill the patient for the rest — a practice known as balance billing.

“We have a system that allows providers to set their own prices,” says Dr. Kevin Schulman, a Stanford University professor of medicine and economics. “In a world where there are no price constraints, there’s no reason to limit capacity, and that’s exactly what we’re seeing.”

Nationally, the average helicopter bill has now reached $40,000, according to a 2019 GAO report — more than twice what it was in 2010. State officials say Wyoming patients have received bills as high as $130,000.

Because consumers don’t know what an air ambulance flight will cost them — and because their medical condition may be an emergency — they can’t choose to go with a lower-cost alternative, either another air ambulance company or a ground ambulance.

A different way of doing things

Wyoming officials propose to reduce the number of air ambulance bases and strategically locate them, to even out access. The state would then seek bids from air ambulance companies to operate those bases at a fixed yearly cost. It’s a regulated monopoly approach, similar to the way public utilities are run.

“You don’t have local privatized fire departments springing up and putting out fires and billing people,” Fuchs says. “The town plans for a few fire stations, decides where they should be strategically, and they pay for that fire coverage capacity.”

Medicaid would cover all the air ambulance flights in Wyoming — and then recoup those costs by billing patients’ insurance plans for those flights. A patient’s out-of-pocket costs would be capped at 2% of the person’s income or $5,000, whichever is less, so patients could easily figure out how much they would owe. Officials estimate they could lower private insurers’ average cost per flight from $36,000 to $22,000 under their plan.

State Rep. Eric Barlow, who co-sponsored the legislation, recognizes the irony of a GOP-controlled, right-leaning legislature taking steps to circumvent market forces. But the Republican said that sometimes government needs to make sure its citizens are not being abused.

“There were certainly some folks with reservations,” he says. “But folks were also hearing from their constituents about these incredible bills.”

Industry pushback

Air ambulance companies have opposed the plan. They say the surprise-billing problem could be eliminated if Medicare and Medicaid covered the cost of flights and the companies wouldn’t have to shift costs to other patients. They question whether the state truly has an oversupply of aircraft and warn that reducing the number of bases would increase response times and cut access to the lifesaving service.

Richard Mincer, an attorney who represents the for-profit Air Medical Group Holdings in Wyoming, says that while 4,000 patients are flown by air ambulance each year in the state, it’s not clear how many more people have needed flights when no aircraft was available.

“How many of these 4,000 people a year are you willing to tell, ‘Sorry, we decided as a legislature you’re going to have to take ground ambulance?’ ” Mincer said during a June hearing on the proposal.

But Wyoming officials say it indeed might be more appropriate for some patients to take ground ambulances. The vast majority of air ambulance flights in the state, they say, are transfers from one hospital to another, rather than on-scene trauma responses. The officials say they’ve also heard of patients being flown for medical events that aren’t an emergency, such as a broken wrist or impending gallbladder surgery.

Air ambulance providers say such decisions are out of their control: They fly when a doctor or a first responder calls.

But air ambulance companies do have ways of drumming up business: They heavily market memberships that cover a patient’s out-of-pocket costs, eliminating any disincentive for the patient to fly. Companies also build relationships with doctors and hospitals that can influence the decision to fly a patient; some have been known to deliver pizzas to hospitals by helicopter to introduce themselves.

Mincer, the Air Medical Group Holdings attorney, says the headline-grabbing, large air ambulance bills don’t reflect what patients end up paying directly. The average out-of-pocket cost for an air ambulance flight, he says, is about $300.

The industry also has tried to shift blame onto insurance plans, which the transporters say refuse to pay their fair share for air ambulance flights and refuse to negotiate lower rates.

Doug Flanders, director of communications and government affairs for the medical transport company Air Methods, says the Wyoming plan “does nothing to compel Wyoming’s health insurers to include emergency air medical services as part of their in-network coverage.”

The profit model

Other critics of the status quo maintain that air ambulance companies don’t want to change, because the industry has seen investments from Wall Street hedge funds that rely on the balance-billing business model to maximize profits.

“It’s the same people who have bought out all the emergency room practices, who’ve bought out all the anesthesiology practices,” says James Gelfand, senior vice president of health policy for the ERISA Industry Committee, a trade group representing large employers. “They have a business strategy of finding medical providers who have all the leverage, taking them out of network and essentially putting a gun to the patient’s head.”

The Association of Air Medical Services counters that the industry is not as lucrative as it’s made out to be, pointing to the recent bankruptcy of PHI Inc., the nation’s third-largest air ambulance provider.

Meanwhile, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wyoming is supportive of the state’s proposal and looks forward to further discussion about the details if approved, according to Wendy Curran, a vice president at the health insurance firm. “We are on record,” Curran says, “as supporting any effort at the state level to address the tremendous financial impacts to our [Wyoming] members when air ambulance service is provided by an out-of-network provider.”

The Wyoming proposal also has been well received by employers, who like the ability to buy into the program at a fixed cost for their employees, providing a predictable annual cost for air ambulance services.

“It is one of the first times we’ve … seen a proposal where the cost of health care might actually go down,” says Anne Ladd, CEO of the Wyoming Business Coalition on Health.

The real challenge, Fuchs says, will be convincing federal officials to go along with it.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit, editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation. KHN is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Tide Rolls Back In: Alabama Hopes To Not Squander Last Year’s Championship ‘Failure’

Alabama Coach Nick Saban roams the field during practice in Tuscaloosa. The Crimson Tide enters the season ranked No. 2 and aiming to reclaim its national championship throne.

Russell Lewis/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Russell Lewis/NPR

The University of Alabama’s Crimson Tide have won five national championships in the past 10 years. “That’s too many!” shout the haters, who especially love to pillory Alabama’s stern head coach Nick Saban. But in Alabama — and especially the team’s hometown of Tuscaloosa — there’s mostly devotion.

A new college football season begins Saturday, and for the Crimson Tide, there is a renewed sense of mission. In last season’s national championship game, Alabama got walloped by rival Clemson. With a new season upon us, Saban and his team are determined to, as he likes to say, “not waste a failure.”

Coach Nick Saban barks plays during a recent Alabama football practice.

Russell Lewis/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Russell Lewis/NPR

A season approaches

It’s a sweltering mid-August morning in Tuscaloosa, and the Alabama campus is largely deserted. Bryant-Denny stadium is empty, but you can hear a football season approaching.

T-shirts are already stained with sweat as members of the Alabama marching band drumline rip their way through morning practice.

Five, six, seven, eight…one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Band members count off as they move in formation without drums. Once the drumming starts, the rat-a-tat sound reverberates for blocks. This morning session is the first of three. That’s right: three-a-days for the group known as the Million Dollar Band.

Hit your notes. Hydrate. Roll Tide!

Members of Alabama’s Million Dollar Band practice three times a day gearing up for football season. Like the team, the drummers keep playing until they’re nearly perfect.

Russell Lewis/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Russell Lewis/NPR

On the same morning, business is bustling at the Waysider. It’s the city’s famous Alabama football-themed restaurant where a small black chalkboard out front marks the number of days ’til the next kickoff.

Inside, the walls are crowded with photos and paintings of players and coaches. Diners order from a menu with “Breakfast of Champions” written on the front. Including a woman whose striped shirt and lipstick match the school colors.

“Every day you need to wear a little bit of crimson,” says Mary Jo Mason, a real estate professional who has lived in Tuscaloosa for 51 of her 78 years. She’s been a season-ticket holder for all 51 years and has cheered many national championships. Under the legendary Alabama head coach Bear Bryant, and since 2007, Nick Saban.

Throughout the Alabama Football administrative building, there are reminders of the Crimson Tide’s dominance. Magazine covers highlight the team’s success.

Russell Lewis/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Russell Lewis/NPR

Mason is buzzing about the upcoming season.

“We’re riding high,” she says. “We have a great recruiting class and nobody ever questions Saban’s ‘process.’ And we’re looking forward to being in the [college football] playoffs and going into the national championship which is in New Orleans this year.”

Indeed, for ‘Bama fans, heading into a new season these days isn’t a question of ‘how will we do?’ It’s more, who are we going to play for the title?

Amidst her optimism, Mason doesn’t mention last season’s Clemson game. When asked to consider the national championship drubbing, Mason says she doesn’t have revenge on her mind.

The 2017 National Championship trophy is the fifth Alabama has won under Coach Nick Saban. It’s displayed in a hall showcasing the team’s four other trophies and other notable accomplishments.

Russell Lewis/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Russell Lewis/NPR

“I don’t care who we have [as a title game opponent],” she says, adding, “I just want to win the national championship. [Beating Clemson] should not be our focus. Our focus is us, and what we have to do to get there.”

She sounds a lot like the head coach she reveres.

“I felt like I personally needed to do a better job of keeping people focused,” Saban said a few hours later. He was talking about what he learned from the 44-16 beat down by Clemson.

“I think one of the most difficult things is for the players to stay focused on not the outcome, but what does it take to do to get the outcome.”

Trusting the process

That is the foundation of his success. Getting young men to do what’s required to accomplish a lofty goal. At Alabama, it’s called “the process” and it’s a hallowed term in Tuscaloosa, albeit a big vague.

Alabama Coach Nick Saban preaches “the process” to his players. This sign near the team’s practice facility gives reminders about what it takes to win.

Russell Lewis/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Russell Lewis/NPR

Ask what the process is exactly, and you get different answers. But you’re not wrong if you say the process involves accountability, coachability, effort, discipline. Doing things the right way so many times and with such little deviation that you can’t do it wrong.

“We’ve had good players who buy into the things that we do here,” Saban says, “to help them be more successful as people, students and players. And it’s worked fairly well for us.”

In his 12 years in Tuscaloosa, Saban’s won five national titles [he also won one coaching at LSU earlier in his career]; he’s got 141 wins against only 21 losses; and he’s had more players drafted into the NFL than any other coach. His recruits are regularly among the best in the country.

Inside Alabama’s “recruiting hall,” 32 helmets of every NFL team scroll through the names of Crimson Tide players who have played in the league.

Russell Lewis/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Russell Lewis/NPR

But there’s another important factor that links Saban’s success to Bear Bryant’s decades ago.

“The one way in which they’re alike is that they had 100% confidence in what they’re doing,” says sports writer Cecil Hurt. He’s covered Alabama football for the Tuscaloosa News since 1982.

“But they also had the ability that very few people have,” Hurt continues, “to convey that confidence onto the people that they are leading. It’s one thing for you to be confident in yourself. It’s another thing for a room full of 18-to-21 year olds to be confident along with you.”

After the Clemson loss, Saban didn’t lose confidence in the process. It just needed shoring up.

“We didn’t have as good of accountability and preparation,” he says. “We have to have everybody put the team first. [And] those are all the things that we’ve tried to re-emphasize, to get our players to stay focused on.”

The message has gotten through to players like senior defensive back Shyheim Carter.

“People think just because we [are], you know, Alabama, we just going to walk in the stadium and win,” Carter says, adding, “it doesn’t work like that. We have to prepare just [like] everybody else, just [like] every other game.”

Alabama defensive back Shyheim Carter, left, chats with Trevon Diggs during a Crimson Tide practice.

Russell Lewis/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Russell Lewis/NPR

Saban urges his players not to dwell on losses, or wins. But Carter says the Clemson defeat has come in handy.

“When leaders on the team feel like practice is going sluggish,” he says, “they always say ’16 to 44.’ Remember that. And you know that kind of gives everybody an extra boost.”

16 to 44. Alabama is first, even in defeat.

Don’t waste time

There was nothing sluggish about practice on this day. A loud horn sounded off when players were supposed to move to the next drill. Quickly. Saban was in the thick of it, wearing a straw hat with crimson-colored band, working with his defensive backs. He moved well, despite recent hip replacement surgery. That was in April. He was back at work within 36 hours of the operation.

Saban doesn’t like to waste time.

Indeed, before our interview, one of his assistants advised us not to meander with questions. Be direct. How will we know if it’s not working? His leg will bounce, we were told. Fast.

Or maybe, we’ll get a snarl. Search “Saban rant” and YouTube is filled with clips of him yelling at practice or snarling at the media.

There are moments of levity too. But those don’t always make it onto the highlight shows. We’re left with the snarl, which, in Alabama-unfriendly territory, has earned Saban nicknames like “satan” or the “Nicktator.”

What does he think about his reputation as the dour leader of what’s been called a joyless juggernaut?

“I don’t think that’s fair,” Saban says. “I think in this day and age it takes about 40 seconds for anything that you say or do to get out there publicly to be evaluated one way or the other. Obviously you can’t always please everybody but hopefully we can please the people in our organization and help them be more successful.”

Before a practice this month, Nick Saban reflects on last season’s national championship drubbing. He’s worked all summer to get ready for this season to “not waste a failure.”

Russell Lewis/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Russell Lewis/NPR

And, Saban says, they do have fun at Alabama.

“It depends on how you describe fun. You know is it fun cutting up and doing crazy stuff that is not going to help you sort of be successful in the future? Or is [it] fun knowing you did your best to be the best you could be at whatever you choose to do? And that doesn’t mean you don’t laugh and enjoy yourself and the relationships that you develop while you’re doing it.”

It also doesn’t mean it’s not hard.

Saban is a perfectionist, which he says he got from “great” parents.

“I worked for my dad in a service station,” he says, “and if you didn’t wash the car right you wash it again. If you didn’t do things the right way, you know there were consequences for it. So I guess it just became a part of how things are supposed to be done and need to be done for you to create any value for yourself and your future.”

An admirable trait but it can be wearing on others. Saban certainly can be tough on his team. Thirteen assistant coaches have left Alabama in the past two years. They are in high demand, and many went to more prominent jobs, after having worked for a demanding boss.

Outside Coach Nick Saban’s office there are enlargements of five Sports Illustrated covers that highlight notable Alabama wins under Saban.

Russell Lewis/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Russell Lewis/NPR

Former Crimson Tide offensive coordinator Michael Locksley told the Wall Street Journal, “Every day you walk in that building you better bring your ‘A’ game. My goal was to show up every day and not have Saban have to rip my butt.”

There are seven new coaches this season, and a renewed dedication to the process. Will it be enough for a seventh national title, giving Saban the most of any college coach in history?

A final answer won’t come until January, when Alabama may be playing for another championship. But don’t ask Saban about that now, eight days before ‘Bama’s opening game of the season against Duke.

It would ignore “the process,” and for sure get that leg working overtime.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

A Dead Cat, A Lawyer’s Call And A 5-Figure Donation: How Media Fell Short On Epstein

Earlier this month, Jeffrey Epstein killed himself, authorities say, in federal prison as he faced criminal charges alleging sex trafficking of underage girls.

AP


hide caption

toggle caption

AP

A coterie of intimidating lawyers. A deployment of charm. An aura of invincibility. A five-figure donation to a New York Times reporter’s favored nonprofit. A bullet delivering a message. Even, it is alleged, a cat’s severed head in the front yard of the editor-in-chief of Vanity Fair.

Such were the tools the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein is said to have used to try to soften news coverage and at times stave off journalistic scrutiny altogether.

Before his death earlier this month, Epstein owned the largest townhouse in Manhattan, little more than a mile from many of the nation’s leading news organizations. He counted a former and a future president among his friends. He partied with royalty and supermodels. He was said to advise billionaires.

Epstein killed himself, authorities say, in federal prison as he faced criminal charges alleging sex trafficking of underage girls, some as young as 14, in his mansions in New York and Florida. And yet with a few notable exceptions, the national media infrequently covered Epstein’s behavior and rarely looked at the associates who helped him evade accountability for his actions — at least, not until the Miami Herald‘s Julie K. Brown’s investigative series late last year.

“We count on the press to uncover problems, not merely to report on when problems have been prosecuted and when people have been indicted, but to uncover problems before they reach that stage,” says David Boies, an attorney for several of Epstein’s accusers. “And here you had a terrible problem. A horrific series of abuses.”

Boies’ firm helped file lawsuits in 2015 and 2017 for clients alleging that Epstein and his associates had sexually trafficked underage girls, at his various homes. The suits were publicly available documents but received little attention in the press.

“We spread them out in two public complaints. We would go to the media to try to explain what was going on,” Boies tells NPR. “With the exception, really, of the Miami Herald and the Daily Beast, prior to the arrest [of Epstein this summer] there was almost no substantive coverage.”

In some cases, Epstein successfully scared off some accusers and struck confidential settlements with others, making it harder for reporters to get them to recount their experiences on the record.

Journalists who have tracked the story say attitudes in society at large and newsrooms themselves shifted with the #MeToo movement that burst forth in the fall of 2017. Some of those cases involved prominent actresses who command resources and media attention.

Some critics of the press’s performance say ruefully there may have been a class element at play. As described in court documents, Epstein and his associates recruited young women from working-class backgrounds and disrupted families.

“We need to look at ourselves, too,” the Miami Herald‘s Brown tells NPR. “We need to understand why this wasn’t scrutinized in this way before.”

Separate instructive episodes stretch from 2003 to 2018 and involve three major American media outlets — Vanity Fair, ABC News and The New York Times. And taken together, they may help illuminate Epstein’s drive to avoid tough journalistic scrutiny and the media’s reluctance to take the story on.

Vanity Fair

Early one morning in the winter of 2003, Vanity Fair Editor-in-Chief Graydon Carter arrived at his magazine’s offices to find an unexpected visitor standing alone in the reception area behind its glass doors. It was Jeffrey Epstein.

In 2002, Carter had read a gossip item in the New York Post‘s Page Six column and decided to assign a reporter to answer the pressing question: Who exactly was Epstein and why was he flying former President Bill Clinton and other celebrities around on his jets?

Under Carter, Vanity Fair was known for eagerly dissecting the nation’s elites and just as eagerly rubbing shoulders with them.

Graydon Carter, former editor-in-chief of Vanity Fair, assigned reporter Vicky Ward to write a story about Epstein that was published in 2003.

Peter Kramer/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Peter Kramer/AP

People had gossiped about Epstein’s influence and his sexual appetite. Also in 2002, future President Donald Trump told New York magazine: “It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

Carter assigned the reporter Vicky Ward to write the story. This summer, she told NPR’s Morning Edition she wanted to pinpoint the source of Epstein’s wealth and to figure out why very young women were always spotted around him.

Ward interviewed two sisters, Maria and Annie Farmer. They alleged Epstein and his former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, lured them into his orbit for sexual exploitation. (Maxwell denies this and all related allegations.)

Maria, an aspiring artist, alleged Epstein and Maxwell sexually assaulted her together in an Ohio apartment. Annie was just 15 years old, the sisters allege, when Epstein sexually assaulted her at his vast New Mexico ranch. (Maria later detailed these allegations in an affidavit for a lawsuit filed in 2019.)

And so that morning when Epstein had materialized at the magazine’s offices, he was there to press Carter not to devote any attention to Epstein’s apparent interest in very young women.

“He was torturing Graydon,” says John Connolly, then a Vanity Fair contributing editor, who reported on crime and scandal.

Epstein beseeched Carter and berated him, Connolly says, that morning and subsequently, in a flood of phone calls. Epstein denied to Carter any misconduct and wanted him to steer away from the subject.

In March 2003, Vanity Fair did publish Ward’s piece. Titled “The Talented Mr. Epstein,” it took a tough look at Epstein’s lavish lifestyle and questioned the origins of his fortune.

It did not report the Farmers’ accusations of abuse.

In March 2003, Vanity Fair published Vicky Ward’s story titled “The Talented Mr. Epstein.”

Robin Marchant/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Robin Marchant/Getty Images

In a statement, Carter says Vanity Fair takes its legal obligations seriously, especially when the subject is a private person rigorously protected under libel laws.

Carter previously told The Hollywood Reporter that Ward did not have three sources on the record, which he said he considered necessary for the story. This week, Carter amended that: He says Ward did not have three sources that met the magazine’s “legal threshold.”

For the first time, in comments to NPR, Maria and Annie Farmer are publicly confirming they gave interviews to Ward. They say they both spoke about their abuse on the record, by name, back in 2002. Their mother, Janice Farmer, tells NPR she did too. And she says they were crestfallen Vanity Fair didn’t report their allegations.

“We decided to share our story about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell with a writer for Vanity Fair in 2002 because telling other people what happened to us, as we had already done, did not lead to either of them being held accountable,” they wrote in a statement for this article. “We spoke on the record. Our mother spoke on the record.”

Attorney David Boies (left) and Annie Farmer, one of Epstein’s accusers, walk to a news conference outside federal court in New York on July 15.

Richard Drew/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Richard Drew/AP

“It was terribly painful,” the Farmer sisters wrote in a statement for this article. “We hoped the story would put people on notice and they would be stopped from abusing other young girls and young women. That didn’t happen. In the end, the story that ran erased our voices.”

Boies, a lawyer for the Farmer sisters, says the omission made it more difficult to get victims and witnesses to speak out. “I think it helped create the impression among many of the victims that the media was under Epstein’s control, that Epstein had all this power,” he says.

Soon after publication, Connolly says, Carter called to share an ominous development: a bullet placed right outside his front door at his Manhattan home.

“That wasn’t a coincidence,” Connolly says.

Even in the absence of any evidence Epstein was involved, Connolly says, both Carter and he considered the bullet a clear warning from Epstein. Another former colleague, who spoke on condition of anonymity, recalls receiving an anguished call from Carter linking the bullet to Epstein. (NPR asked Carter repeatedly over the course of a week for his recollections of the bullet incident along with other elements presented here. After this story was broadcast and posted, his spokeswoman wrote to say Carter recalled the bullet appearing in 2004, not 2003.)

In 2006, federal authorities compiled accusations against Epstein in Florida. Connolly says he headed south to see if there was a story there for Vanity Fair.

As Connolly pursued interviews with women who had worked for Epstein, he says, Carter called him once more. The editor had found another intrusion, this time in the front yard of his Connecticut home: the severed head of a dead cat.

“It was done to intimidate,” Connolly tells NPR. “No question about it.” (Others who worked for Vanity Fair at the time said the cat’s head was the talk of the office.)

Connolly tells NPR he voluntarily decided to stop pursuing the subject for the magazine. He later wrote a nonfiction book about Epstein with the bestselling crime novelist James Patterson.

In statements to NPR, Carter says the magazine never held back on reporting on Epstein because of any sense of threat.

Although federal investigators had identified nearly three dozen victims, Epstein’s legal team was able to strike a controversial deal letting him plead guilty to reduced state charges of soliciting prostitution from a teenager.

After release from jail, Epstein was accepted back into society by many leading social figures in Manhattan and beyond. He donated generous amounts to top scientists and scholars at Harvard and MIT and became a philanthropist for leading institutions of art and music.

In 2010, a group of media heavyweights joined a dinner in honor of Britain’s Prince Andrew. It was arranged by a Hollywood publicist and hosted by Epstein at his Manhattan townhouse. Attendees included ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos and CBS anchors Katie Couric and Charlie Rose.

Ghislaine Maxwell and a guest at the 2014 Vanity Fair Oscar party hosted by Graydon Carter in West Hollywood, Calif.

Kevin Mazur/VF14/WireImage


hide caption

toggle caption

Kevin Mazur/VF14/WireImage

The next year, Ward posted an essay about Epstein and his circle. In that 2011 essay, she referred glancingly to Epstein’s “sexual peccadilloes.”

And Ward wrote about Maxwell in glowing terms as “always the most interesting, the most vivacious, the most unusual person in any room. I’ve spent hours talking to her about the Third World at a bar until two a.m. She is as passionate as she is knowledgeable. She is curious.”

Ward concluded: “In this city, money makes up for all sorts of blemishes.”

In March 2014, a society photographer captured a snap of Maxwell as a guest at a black-tie party held after the Academy Awards in Hollywood. The party was sponsored by Vanity Fair. It was hosted by Graydon Carter.

ABC News

In recent months, a photograph of Virginia Roberts Giuffre has ricocheted around the world. It shows a young woman with a broad smile on her face, and Prince Andrew’s hand rests on her hip next to her exposed midriff. The prince is smiling too.

Giuffre is about 17 in the photograph, taken in 2001 at Maxwell’s London home. Other pictures of Giuffre published by tabloids are from a party for the supermodel Naomi Campbell. Epstein and Maxwell stand just a few feet from Giuffre in pictures from that night.

Giuffre had become part of Epstein’s household. Her presence at Campbell’s party, Giuffre later testified, was part of a six-week trip Epstein took her on throughout Europe and the Mediterranean. After a later party she attended for Campbell, she said, Epstein told her to have sex with a businessman, and she said she performed a sexual act upon him. Epstein later procured her for sex with other associates as well, she said, Prince Andrew among them — a charge he and Buckingham Palace sharply reject.

Maxwell had come across Giuffre while the younger woman worked at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, according to allegations in court documents. Giuffre was a locker room attendant there. Maxwell spied her reading a book about anatomy and massage therapy as she happened by.

In May 2009, Giuffre sued Epstein and accused Maxwell of recruiting her to a life of being sexually trafficked while she was a minor. She alleged it took years to escape. (Maxwell rejects her allegations.)

In 2015, the ABC News team of Amy Robach and Jim Hill secured an interview with Giuffre. In a sequence of events confirmed by the network, producers paid for Giuffre and her family to fly from Colorado, where they lived, to New York City and put them up at the Ritz-Carlton hotel on Central Park South. Robach and her news crew interviewed Giuffre on tape for more than an hour about Epstein and his entourage.

“At the time, in 2015, Epstein was walking around a free man, comparing his criminal behavior to stealing a bagel,” Giuffre writes in an email to NPR. “I really wanted a spotlight shone on him and the others who acted with him and enabled his vile and shameless conduct against young girls and young women.”

“I viewed the ABC interview as a potential game-changer,” she writes. “Appearing on ABC with its wide viewership would have been the first time for me to speak out against the government for basically looking the other way and to describe the anger and betrayal victims felt.”

The story never aired. And Giuffre has said she was never directly told why.

ABC News would not detail its editorial choices.

One ABC News staffer with knowledge of events says the network received a call from one of Epstein’s top lawyers: Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz. And Giuffre and her lawyers placed great significance on that call.

Dershowitz had been part of the powerhouse legal team that earlier kept Epstein from facing serious federal charges in Florida, which also included former Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr and renowned Miami defense attorney Roy Black.

Dershowitz tells NPR he intervened after learning ABC was on the brink of broadcasting its interview with Giuffre. He says he believes he spoke with two producers and a lawyer within the same 24-hour period.

“I did not want to see [Giuffre’s] credibility enhanced by ABC,” Dershowitz says.

In a December 2014 court filing in another accuser’s lawsuit, Giuffre had alleged Dershowitz was among the prominent men Epstein had instructed her to have sex with when she was a teenager. In early 2015, Dershowitz had rejected her account out of hand in his own court filings. (The nature of his denials were such that Giuffre sued Dershowitz for defamation earlier this year. Dershowitz has asked the court to dismiss that lawsuit.)

By September 2015, ABC soon had another possible news hook. Giuffre filed a defamation lawsuit against Maxwell in which she alleged specifics of just how, in her account, she was recruited and abused by Epstein and Maxwell. (Maxwell, again, denies those claims.) Boies, who represents Giuffre, told the Miami Herald that case was settled in 2017.

ABC episodically covered the various lawsuits. Yet it did not broadcast the interview with Giuffre.

“I found [Giuffre] to be very truthful and credible,” says the Herald‘s Brown, who interviewed her several years later for the paper’s coverage. “There were other things in the record that supported her story. So I didn’t have any qualms about it.”

Brown said a fear of being sued was a constant for reporters on the Epstein story.

The network says its decision not to broadcast the interview four years ago reflected proper journalistic care.

“At the time, not all of our reporting met our standards to air, but we never stopped investigating the story,” ABC News spokeswoman Heather Riley said in a statement sent to NPR this week. “Over the past year we have put a whole team on this investigation, which will air in the coming months.”

The #MeToo movement has affected journalistic practices in handling such circumstances.

In October 2017, more than two years after the Giuffre interview, ABC’s Diane Sawyer interviewed the actor Ashley Judd about her accusations against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein.

At that time, Judd had not yet filed a lawsuit against Weinstein and he did not yet face criminal charges. Yet ABC viewers heard Judd’s accusations in full.

Giuffre now lives in Australia with her husband and children.

“I was defeated, once again, by the very people I spoke out against and once again, my voice was silenced,” Giuffre tells NPR. “I could not believe that a formidable network like ABC had backed down and given in.”

The New York Times

Last August, reporters at The New York Times and other publications received word Tesla founder Elon Musk was relying on Epstein to advise him on whom to consider hiring as board chair or chief executive.

Editors at the Times sent business columnist James Stewart to talk to Epstein. “I wondered why would Musk, if this is true, be using a registered sex offender to recruit new members to the board,” Stewart recently told The Kicker, a podcast from the Columbia Journalism Review.

Given Epstein’s criminal history, the off-the-record conversation took a surprising turn. As Stewart wrote last week: “He said that criminalizing sex with teenage girls was a cultural aberration and that at times in history it was perfectly acceptable.”

Yet Stewart was not the editors’ first choice to interview Epstein further.

Initially, they had asked Landon Thomas Jr., a veteran financial correspondent who had been at the Times for 16 years.

Thomas knew Epstein fairly well — having first written about the financier, back in 2002, just before he joined the paper. Thomas had considered him a valued source ever since, even after Epstein’s release from jail for sex offenses. Just how valued turned out to be a problem for the reporter and the paper.

This account is based on interviews with five current and former New York Times staffers with knowledge of the episode. They spoke on condition they not be directly named; while the Times confirmed the contours of the incident, it declined to authorize its journalists to comment. Thomas also declined to comment for this story.

But Thomas flagged a problem. He told his editors Epstein had been a great source for years and had become something of a friend as well. How close? Thomas had solicited a $30,000 contribution from Epstein for a Harlem cultural center, he told them.

Thomas suggested Epstein was just a source of information, not someone he would report on or investigate. His editors were aghast. They rejected the distinction he was trying to make.

And his editors benched him instantly from any professional contact with Epstein.

“Soliciting a donation to a personal charity is a clear violation of the policy that governs Times journalists’ relationships with their sources,” said the Times Co.’s chief spokesperson, Eileen Murphy. “As soon as editors became aware of it, they took action.”

NPR found tax records that reflect a $30,000 donation in 2017 to a Montessori preschool called O’Gorman Garden in Harlem from a foundation based in the U.S. Virgin Islands that had previously been controlled by Epstein.

Colleagues pulled up his clippings. Thomas had not written frequently about Epstein. But several Times staffers say they were appalled by a piece they found.

For a 2008 profile, Thomas had traveled to Epstein’s private isle in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The piece ran just before Epstein submitted to authorities in Florida for incarceration.

It included this lyrical passage: “As his legal troubles deepened, Mr. Epstein gazed at the azure sea and the lush hills of St. Thomas in the distance, poked at a lunch of crab and rare steak prepared by his personal chef, and tried to explain how his life had taken such a turn,” Thomas wrote. “He likened himself to Gulliver shipwrecked among the diminutive denizens of Lilliput.”

The article largely presented Epstein as someone who solicited prostitutes, not committed sex crimes against minors. (Federal agents had by then identified several dozen possible victims.)

Rereading the story in August 2018, Thomas’ colleagues recalled the exclusives their paper broke that propelled the #MeToo awakening. This, they say, was an embarrassment.

By early January 2019, Thomas was gone from the Times, though the inspiration for his departure was not shared with the public.

Last weekend, the paper reported on a public apology by one of its corporate directors, Joichi Ito, who had landed millions of dollars from Epstein for the institute he leads, the MIT Media Lab. In a tweet, the paper’s media editor, Jim Windolf, said that Ito had sought funds from Epstein “a few years after Epstein got out of the Palm Beach County Jail.”

NPR’s Cat Schuknecht contributed reporting to this story.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Opinion: Jay-Z Can’t Roc With The NFL Unless Kaepernick Gets A Seat At The Table

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and Jay Z at Roc Nation’s Manhattan headquarters on August 14, announcing a partnership between the sports league and the rapper’s entertainment company.

Kevin Mazur/Getty Images for Roc Nation


hide caption

toggle caption

Kevin Mazur/Getty Images for Roc Nation

Ever since Jay-Z announced a partnership between his Roc Nation entertainment company and the NFL — ostensibly to help the league step up its Super Bowl halftime show and amplify its social justice program platform — the whole thing has played out like a tragic blaxploitation flick. One powerful scene in particular from the era keeps replaying in my mind, like an eerie precursor to last week’s press conference and the resulting fallout. It comes from The Mack, that 1973 cult classic about an ex-con who turns Oakland into a pimper’s paradise while dodging both the clutches of The Man and the revolutionary angst of The Brother Man. With the opening notes of Willie Hutch’s “Brothers Gonna Work It Out” stirring in the background, Goldie the pimp (Max Julien) and his movement-minded brother Olinka (Roger E. Mosely) square off in a war of words pitting black capitalist against black activist — one thriving off the system’s inherent inequality, the other dead-set on dismantling it piece by unconscionable piece.

“You really don’t understand, do you?” Olinka asks in his red, black and green knitted beanie. “Hey man, don’t you realize in order for this thing to work, we’ve got to get rid of the pimps and the pushers and the prostitutes? And then start all over again clean.” Goldie, his wide brim tilted to the side, strikes back: “Nobody’s closing me out of my business,” he says. “Being rich and black means something, man. Don’t you know that? Being poor and black don’t mean s***.”

To pimp or be pimped, that’s the eternal question — and from the cheap seats, it’s hard to tell which role Jay-Z has cast for himself. When it comes to espousing the ideals of free market enterprise, there is no bigger cheerleader in hip-hop than the rapper born Shawn Carter, who has come a long way from Brooklyn’s Marcy projects. But when the oppressed find themselves sitting in the seat of their oppressors after two decades of musical chairs, that’s no anomaly: It’s the system replicating itself as designed. For his part, Jay-Z helped raise a whole generation of fans on a don’t-hate-the-playa-hate-the-game ethos of black capitalism that doesn’t even begin to account for how rooted the system is in white supremacy and inequality. Can’t knock his hustle, but the dangerous thing about Jay’s latest deal is that it comes at the cost of a struggle already in progress. Whatever his intention, he’s only succeeded so far in further polarizing the movement that made Colin Kaepernick a modern-day Muhammad Ali.

“I think we’re past kneeling. I think it’s time for action,” Jay-Z stated while announcing the deal last week, sitting alongside NFL commissioner Roger Goddell at Roc Nation’s Manhattan headquarters on Aug. 14, three years to the day after Kaepernick’s first protest. The partnership has effectively turned one of the NFL’s most vocal (and certainly one of its most powerful) critics into a paid contractor. Two years ago, Jay wore a Kaepernick jersey during his Saturday Night Live performance. Last year, he thumbed his nose at the league with the line, “You need me / I don’t need you,” on the song “Apes***” that he released with Beyoncé. And when he urged artists like Travis Scott not to entertain Super Bowl performance offers, the assumption was that he was motivated by the same social politics in doing so. Now, the deal he’s struck for an as-yet undisclosed amount has raised questions what his motives were before.

YouTube

“Jay-Z Helps the NFL Banish Colin Kaepernick,” sports journalist Jemele Hill headlined her piece for The Atlantic. Indeed, the quarterback continues to pay the price of daring to use the NFL’s platform to bring visibility to social and racial injustice in America. Jay claimed last week that he had had a conversation with Kaepernick before closing the NFL deal, but refused to share the details of their talk. Kaepernick’s girlfriend, radio personality Nessa Diab, called that “a lie,” saying that Kaepernick was “never included in any discussion” with Jay-Z or the NFL about their eventual partnership. An anonymous source close to Kaepernick told Jemele Hill that he and Jay-Z did talk, but “it was not a good conversation.”

It’s easy to imagine that conversation going about as well as the one between Goldie and his brother in The Mack. Reactions to the deal have been equally explosive, especially on social media where age-old arguments about black America’s best path forward for true liberation — be it market-driven or movement-driven — were reignited. “F*** Colin Kaepernick,” rapper Freddie Gibbs posted on Instagram earlier this week while making it clear that he’s riding with Jay-Z. (He later tweeted that he’d had an enlightening conversation with Jemele Hill, after she posted that his response was exactly what the NFL wanted.) Other vocal Jay-Z supporters have included Vic Mensa and Cardi B, but with the caveat that they both believe Jay’s involvement will ultimately help Kaepernick get back into the league. Roc Nation’s own J. Cole and filmmaker Ava DuVernay have been among the high-profile supporters of Kaepernick in the past week, while Carolina Panther Eric Reid, who was the first to join Kaepernick’s protest, called Jay-Z “asinine” for saying the time for kneeling has passed. On the day of the press conference, Kaepernick himself wrote on Twitter,”I continue to work and stand with the people in our fight for liberation, despite those who are trying to erase the movement!”

According to Jay-Z, his switch from staunch NFL critic to potential ally came not as an abrupt about-face but through a series of conversations with Goodell over the last several months. He credits Patriots owner (and President Trump supporter) Robert Kraft with helping to start their talks; Kraft has also played an active role in Roc Nation’s criminal justice reform initiatives, most notably as a supporter of Meek Mill. Plans for collaboration include expanding on the league’s existing Inspire Change initiative by adding a program of unofficial anthems (“Songs of the Season”) from select artists to be played during NFL broadcasts, a podcasting platform for players (“Beyond the Field”) and a visual album of Super Bowl halftime shows. Those plans have already been criticized as a platform designed to move player protests off the field, and it already seems to be having the subtle effect of silencing NFL players on the field. One day after Miami Dolphins player Kenny Stills criticized Jay-Z for “choosing to speak for the people, [as if] he had spoken to the people,” Dolphins head coach Brian Flores reportedly had his team play eight straight Jay-Z songs to open up practice.

Maybe it’s easy to forget due to the narrative being hijacked by critics, but Kaepernick was never protesting the NFL. He was protesting police brutality and racial injustice, and for good reason: Young black men in America are now more than twice as likely to get killed by police than their white peers, according to a recent study. Clearly, this stuff is bigger than football. What remains to be seen is how Roc Nation’s collaborations with the NFL will address these systemic issues, and actually help bring us past the time for kneeling. As it stands, the deal feels like the NFL attempting to invalidate Kaepernick’s sacrifice, without extending him the courtesy of a seat at the table. And its success hinges on Jay’s ability to leverage black cultural capital for the benefit of a league that has spent the last three years publicly devaluing it.

At one point during last week’s press conference, Jay-Z turned the questions on the reporters in the room, asking several of them: “Do you know what the issue is?” It was a rhetorical question, meant to highlight his belief that Kaepernick’s protest has already done the job of highlighting what’s at stake. But the real question is whether Jay-Z truly understands the issue. After receiving pointed criticism from Harry Belafonte for a lack of social responsibility several years ago, Jay’s done admirable work pushing for criminal justice reform, producing documentaries on Trayvon Martin and Kalief Browder, and bankrolling legal defenses for Meek Mill’s probation case and 21 Savage’s immigration case. But he’s also been known to oversimplify the ways that money, power and racism intersect to marginalize Americans who look like him.

This is the same black billionaire, after all, who encouraged a concert hall full of his own skinfolk to, “Gentrify your own hood / Before these people do.” The freestyle was meant to pay homage to Nipsey Hussle’s economic revitalization efforts in South Central Los Angeles. But it failed to contextualize how property values and racial privilege remain tethered together in ways that overwhelmingly leave black folks displaced and erased in the process. Nor did it mention his own previous role in that same erasure: The 1% minority ownership stake he held in the Brooklyn Nets helped pacify concerns about the future economic impact of Barclays Center, a development that has helped gentrification creep into Biggie Smalls’ old hood just a few blocks away.

Despite the criticism, there’s still room for the Roc Nation / NFL initiative to do impressive work. The current fallout is largely about optics rather than execution. And Jay does have a history of shaky rollouts: Remember the live-streamed Tidal launch, anyone? His streaming service has not only survived alongside big boys Spotify and Apple, it’s built up its own brand loyalty by catering to an urban demographic. (As a longtime subscriber, I should know.)

Only in black America are entertainment moguls tasked with being as astute in the political arena as they are in concert arenas. Every individual decision a black celebrity makes is weighted with the responsibility of representation. There’s a long history in this country of black artists being used to quell protests or co-opt movements; the question is whether Jay-Z fully grasps what’s at stake. You can’t be critical of the status quo — and the NFL definitely represents the status quo in this country — if you’re working to uplift it. The new deal shouldn’t let the NFL off the hook for mishandling Kaepernick, and Roc Nation shouldn’t be taken as a proxy for the people, even if its work does ultimately benefit the people. It’s clear that Jay-Z knows his worth, but hip-hop’s first billionaire must learn to wield his power in ways that don’t undermine the efforts of activists putting in ground work.

If you haven’t seen The Mack in its entirety, the ending — spoiler alert — is a revelation. Despite competing worldviews about how to uplift the black community, Goldie and Olinka end up linking to defeat their common enemy: corrupt cops. Resolving the distance between capitalists and activists is easier to romanticize on the big screen, but the truth is hustlers, club owners and entertainers helped bankroll and bail out the leaders of the civil rights movement, too.

Instead of sitting with Roger Goodell at last week’s press conference, Jay-Z should have been sitting with Colin Kaepernick. Even if their methods are different, we needed to see Jay working to reconcile the NFL’s relationship with the player who spearheaded the fight for social justice on the field before working to repair the NFL’s reputation off the field.

If the brothers gonna work it out, they’ve gotta stick it to The Man together.

YouTube

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Tales Of Corporate Painkiller Pushing: ‘The Death Rates Just Soared’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that most new heroin addicts first became hooked on prescription painkillers, such as oxycodone, before graduating to heroin, which is cheaper.

John Moore/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

John Moore/Getty Images

Nearly 2,000 cities, towns and counties across America are currently participating in a massive multidistrict civil lawsuit against the opioid industry for damages related to the abuse of prescription pain medication. The defendants in the suit include drug manufacturers like Mallinckrodt, wholesale distributors McKesson and Cardinal Health, and pharmacy chains CVS and Walgreens.

Evidence related to the lawsuit was initially sealed, but The Washington Post and the Charleston Gazette-Mail successfully sued to have it made public. Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post journalist Scott Higham says the evidence, which was released in July, includes sworn depositions and internal corporate emails that indicate the drug industry purposely shipped suspiciously large quantities of drugs without regard for how they were being used.

Higham says one sales director at the pharmaceutical manufacturer Mallinckrodt was jokingly called “ship, ship, ship” by colleagues because of the amount of oxycodone and hydrocodone he sold: “His bonus structure was tied to the amount of sales that he made,” Higham notes. “And that was a time when there was no secret about how many people were dying in places across the country, and the opioid epidemic was raging.”

Higham and his colleagues at the Post were also able to access data from the Drug Enforcement Agency that trace the path of some 76 billion opioid pain pills sold between 2006 and 2012. In analyzing the movement of those pills, they made a gruesome discovery.

“When you line up the CDC death [by overdose] database with the DEA’s database on opioid distribution, you see a clear correlation between the saturation of towns and cities and counties and the numbers of deaths,” Higham says. “A lot of these towns and cities, small cities and counties in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania have just been devastated. … The death rates just soared in those places where the pills were being dumped.”


Interview Highlights

On the picture emerging from recently unsealed DEA database

A lot of people thought they knew that their communities were being saturated by these opioids, but I don’t think they really knew the extent of the saturation, and who was responsible. So this database pulls the curtain back on that for the first time. We obtained data that goes from 2006 through 2012. So over that seven-year period … you can see exactly which manufacturers were responsible, which distributors were responsible, and which pharmacies were responsible. And we took that database and we turned it into a usable, public-facing database, so now anybody in the country can go onto our website and they can see exactly what happened in their communities. …

Dozens and dozens of local news organizations have done stories about their own communities — which companies flooded their communities with pills, which pharmacies were responsible for dispensing the most tablets of oxycodone and hydrocodone. Those are the two drugs that we looked at, because they are the most widely abused drugs by addicts and by drug dealers.

On the communities that were flooded with opioids

It’s just heartbreaking to see these once thriving communities. They’re almost like zombielands, where people are just walking around in a daze and picking through garbage cans and falling down, and overdosing in public parks and inside of cars and inside of streets and on street corners. It’s a very upsetting scene that’s happening. …

These communities need help — desperately need help. Their hospitals need help. Their foster care agencies need help — because so many parents have perished and their kids have no family or [are] being raised by grandparents. Police departments, paramedics, fire departments that used to fight fires all the time now are fighting against the opioid epidemic and carrying Narcan with them, which is an overdose reversal drug, and “Narcaning” people all day long.

On how drug distributors generated billions in revenue from the opioid epidemic

They’re making massive amounts of money. Many of them are Fortune 500 companies. In fact, the No. 1 drug distributor in America, McKesson Corp., is the fifth-largest company in the United States — fifth-largest of all companies in the United States — and it’s a company that most people have never heard of. And they are a huge, huge player in this world, and of the distributors that sent these drugs downstream they were No. 1. And they were followed by two other companies that a lot of folks probably have not heard of. One is called AmerisourceBergen and another is called Cardinal Health. … Together those three companies are the three biggest drug distributors in the United States. And they were followed by Walgreens, CVS and Walmart as the top six drug distributors in the United States.

On “pill mills” that popped up in Florida, where people could get opioids from corrupt doctors — and then resell them on the street

All of a sudden, all these drug dealers realize that there was another way to peddle these pills, and they began to open up these so-called pain management clinics, and most of them were in South Florida, heavily concentrated in Broward County, which is where Fort Lauderdale is. … These things … were basically storefront operations in strip malls where you had corrupt doctors and rogue pharmacists working hand in hand inside of a store. So on one side of the store you’d come in, you’d get a cursory examination, the doctor would write you a script. And you literally go next door and get it filled. And these places just became huge open-air drug markets. The parking lots were filled with people who were driving down from Kentucky and West Virginia and Ohio to pick up their prescriptions. And along the highway that goes up through Florida, I-75 and then also I-95, a lot of these storefronts began putting up billboards along the highway at exit ramps saying, “Pain management clinic, next exit.”

On the Justice Department’s history of fining drug companies instead of filing criminal charges

[Investigators at the DEA’s Office of Diversion Control] started to see a pattern, and it’s a pattern that they see that continues to this day, that there are people within the Justice Department who are not very aggressive when it comes to these cases. They feel that some of them are a little too close to the industry; that maybe some of the people in the Justice Department want to work for the industry one day, so they don’t go as hard against these companies as perhaps they should. … If you take a look at the revolving door between the Justice Department, the DEA and the drug industry, it’s a very impressive revolving door. You have dozens and dozens of high-ranking officials from the DEA and from the Justice Department who have crossed over to the other side and they’re now working directly for the industry or for law firms representing the industry. So if you’re a DEA investigator or a DEA lawyer or a Justice Department lawyer making $150,000 a year, you cross over and you can triple, quadruple your salary overnight.

Amy Salit and Seth Kelley produced and edited the audio of this interview. Bridget Bentz and Deborah Franklin adapted it for the Web.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)