Fake news? Rubashkin

amother

Crimson

Thu, Dec 21 2017, 12:54 pm

Here's what the wapo reported:

. wrote:

No one denied that Sholom Rubashkin’s crimes were serious. The former chief executive of what was once the country’s largest kosher meatpacking plant was convicted of more than 80 counts of financial fraud in 2009, following a massive immigration raid on the family-owned facility in northeastern Iowa. Prosecutors said he had profited off the labor of hundreds of undocumented immigrants, some of them children, and had bilked lenders out of more than $26 million.

But his punishment was draconian, some argued, especially for a first-time, nonviolent offender. Though Rubashkin was cleared of child labor violations and immigration charges against him were dropped, a federal judge sentenced him to 27 years in prison, longer than some defendants receive for murder. For the middle-aged father of 10, it amounted to a de facto life term.

On top of that, an array of lawmakers, law enforcement officials and legal experts claimed his case had been tainted by egregious misconduct by prosecutors. His supporters included five former attorneys general, among them Michael Mukasey, who headed the Justice Department when Rubashkin was charged. As Rubashkin idled in a New York correctional facility, calls mounted for his sentence to be commuted......

Rubashkin, before he was imprisoned, and members of the Rubashkin family then and since, have been significant contributors to political candidates and committees, most but not all of them Republicans, according to the database kept by OpenSecrets.org

Technically, everything here is true, aside from maybe the first sentence that no one denied his crimes were serious, but it can be argued that that's clearly opinion anyway.

But the omission or glossing over of several details, and the mention with specificity of other details, paint the story in a different light and leave the reader, who may know nothing else about the story, with a very different impression:

That the child labor and immigration charges were dropped because he was acquitted on every single one of the some 9,000 counts brought against him, and that not a single one of the government's witnesses came through.

This detail indicates prosecutorial over-zealousness, trumped-up charges and a witch hunt.

That the judge had held secret meetings with the prosecution to plan the raid on Rubashkin, indicating lack of judicial impartiality. That the judge failed to disclose her involvement until after the trial, when it was too late for him to object.

That the prosecution's own actions, freezing his assets etc. rendered him unable to repay the bank loan. And that the harsh sentence he was then given was because of his inability to pay the bank loan! Had there been no investigation and no trial, there likely would've been no harm to the bank!

That the "array" of legal experts who opposed his sentencing included over 85 individuals who submitted briefs on his behalf together with his appeal, and that they came from every end of the legal spectrum. Naming some of his supporters would leave a certain impression, such as Janet Reno.

Stating that Rubashkin has been a political donor, mostly Republican, also has a different effect than had the article simply stated that Rubashkin never donated to Trump.

Some articles were better, some were worse.

Because this is a case I'm familiar with, it seemed to me like a good illustration of how "fake news" works.

ra_mom

Thu, Dec 21 2017, 12:56 pm

Why do we have to go there? We've been over this a million times over the past decade. Let's live in the moment and put the past behind us.

amother

Crimson

Thu, Dec 21 2017, 1:07 pm

ra_mom wrote:

Why do we have to go there? We've been over this a million times over the past decade. Let's live in the moment and put the past behind us.

It's the present. It's constant. It's everything we see in the news, hear on the radio every day.

Imo, it's the source of the visceral anger and hate that people have, without their ever realizing

amother

Jetblack

Thu, Dec 21 2017, 1:24 pm

I did not think the wapo article was so off.
Your analysis is also slanted.
As far as I understood, he was not acquitted on immigration charges - the prosecution let it rest since the bank fraud has already stuck and the sentence was significant.
You omitted that there were a number of motions filed alleging prosecutorial misconduct which were rejected or not heard.
There is also the issue of remorse.

amother

Navy

Thu, Dec 21 2017, 1:34 pm

amother wrote:

Here's what the wapo reported:

Technically, everything here is true, aside from maybe the first sentence that no one denied his crimes were serious, but it can be argued that that's clearly opinion anyway.

But the omission or glossing over of several details, and the mention with specificity of other details, paint the story in a different light and leave the reader, who may know nothing else about the story, with a very different impression:

That the child labor and immigration charges were dropped because he was acquitted on every single one of the some 9,000 counts brought against him, and that not a single one of the government's witnesses came through.

This detail indicates prosecutorial over-zealousness, trumped-up charges and a witch hunt.

That the judge had held secret meetings with the prosecution to plan the raid on Rubashkin, indicating lack of judicial impartiality. That the judge failed to disclose her involvement until after the trial, when it was too late for him to object.

That the prosecution's own actions, freezing his assets etc. rendered him unable to repay the bank loan. And that the harsh sentence he was then given was because of his inability to pay the bank loan! Had there been no investigation and no trial, there likely would've been no harm to the bank!

That the "array" of legal experts who opposed his sentencing included over 85 individuals who submitted briefs on his behalf together with his appeal, and that they came from every end of the legal spectrum. Naming some of his supporters would leave a certain impression, such as Janet Reno.

Stating that Rubashkin has been a political donor, mostly Republican, also has a different effect than had the article simply stated that Rubashkin never donated to Trump.

Some articles were better, some were worse.

Because this is a case I'm familiar with, it seemed to me like a good illustration of how "fake news" works.

It seems a good example of how people with an agenda will take a completely truthful and legitimate article and call it "fake news" in order to support their agendas, and to attempt to delegitimize news outlets in order to ensure that only their agendas are supported.

(1) Rubashkin was convicted of serious crimes. He lost all appeals. He has not been pardoned, and his conviction stands. I understand that you think that his crimes were minor, or that he wasn't responsible for them. But it would be false for any news outlet not to report on them, and on their seriousness. WaPo 1, You -1 (because you would like them to falsely report that he was justified, which is not what the courts found).

(2) WaPo reports that he was cleared of child labor charges. You complain, because he was "acquitted." That's what it means. WaPo 2, You -5, because you lie about "9000 charges" and a "witch hunt."

(3) WaPo reports that immigration charges were dropped. You complain that ... I have no clue. WaPo 3, You -6.

(4) WaPo doesn't report that you think that the entire prosecution was ridiculous and that lots of people agree with you. Except, of course, that he was convicted, the conviction upheld, and still stands. WaPo 4, You -10 (because you want them to report "fake news").

You may think that the article should have been more critical, but its completely true.

What is "fake news"? It reports facts incorrectly, and without excuse.

Eg, Fox News reported "Roy Moore accuser admits she forged part of yearbook inscription attributed to Alabama senate candidate." Except, well, she didn't. (She added notes under a yearbook inscription attributed to Moore: specifically, the date and location written under Moore’s signature.) And even that may not be totally "fake," as it was later corrected.

Cmon be nice

Thu, Dec 21 2017, 1:34 pm

amother wrote:

No. If memory serves, they lowered the immigration charges to approx 70 as they couldnt try him on every charge (numbering in the thousands). He was then acquitted of the remaining charges. Check out this link (first one I found)

https://forward.com/news/12866.....rges/

Fox

Thu, Dec 21 2017, 2:12 pm

The article leaves the impression that Rubashkin had a small group of supporters.

In fact, redress for R' Rubashkin was urged by a list of the legal profession's heaviest hitters, including not just former AGs, but well-known legal scholars, retired judges, etc. Most notably, these were people from across the political spectrum. This was truly one of the few issues of bi-partisan agreement in the past decade!

But we see the world as we are, not as it is. To WaPo editors, everything is politics and power. They cannot imagine a world in which both Democrats and Republicans would simply do the right thing because it's the right thing.

SixOfWands

Thu, Dec 21 2017, 2:28 pm

Fox wrote:

WaPo wrote:

Quote:

On top of that, an array of lawmakers, law enforcement officials and legal experts claimed his case had been tainted by egregious misconduct by prosecutors. His supporters included five former attorneys general, among them Michael Mukasey, who headed the Justice Department when Rubashkin was charged. As Rubashkin idled in a New York correctional facility, calls mounted for his sentence to be commuted.

* * *

The White House said in a statement that Trump made the decision at the urging of officials, scholars and congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

* * *

Dozens of members of Congress and 80 former federal judges raised similar issues in letters to the Justice Department and the White House in the years after Rubashkin was sentenced

Does that seriously leave you with the impression that he had a "small group of supporters"?

amother

Crimson

Thu, Dec 21 2017, 2:45 pm

amother wrote:

Honestly not sure where you're going with this. Did I say the crimes were minor? That's the whole point--"minor" is an opinion. News media are supposed to report the facts, not cherry pick.

He was charged with 9,311 counts of labor violations. That's an insane number. The sheer number would lead one to expect that the defendant must be guilty of horrible things.

That he was eventually acquitted of ALL charges related to labor and employment is astonishing, given that he was charged with so many.

Knowing the number of counts he was charged with, and that he was acquitted of all, does leave the reader with a completely different impression than omitting that detail.

What's a good reason for a news article to omit that?

You're bothered that I didn't mention the appeals? Only because my post was lengthy enough. Iirc the underlying crimes he was found guilty of were never re-heard on appeal; the only issues appealed were procedural. There is much to be said about the appeals.

If you want to mention something--go ahead. But show the whole picture.

Where did I say the article should've been "critical"? The whole point is that this is a news article, not an opinion piece.

I didn't say the trial was "ridiculous", I said that the article could've mentioned the judge's meeting with prosecutors to plan the raid before it happened. This raises the specter of lack of impartiality.

Facts, not opinion, were omitted. I'm tired of all the cherry-picking.

Fox

Thu, Dec 21 2017, 2:46 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Does that seriously leave you with the impression that he had a "small group of supporters"?

Perhaps "small group of supporters" wasn't the best choice of words. Rather, I think the beginning of the article underplayed both the numbers and the professional standing of the people who supported Rubashkin. The end of the article remedies this somewhat after going off on a tangent about immigration, which was completely irrelevant to the convictions.

Was it a horrible or wildly inaccurate article? No. It was just kind of disorganized. I'm assuming it was because of a deadline and a general predisposition to see things in political terms, not any grand conspiracy theory.

amother

Crimson

Thu, Dec 21 2017, 2:49 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Does that seriously leave you with the impression that he had a "small group of supporters"?

My bad, I should've made clear that I wasn't quoting the article in its entirety.

Fwiw I thought Fortune presented a much more objective piece, and foxnews was terrible.

Eta. But that being said, I agree with Fox's post above re the wapo piece.

My point was precisely that it's not outright lies that influence our views on issues, but the more subtle omissions in the news we're exposed to, article captioning, leading sentences, placement, etc

Simple1

Thu, Dec 21 2017, 2:50 pm

And I read that article thinking, not bad, could have been a lot worse.

browser

Thu, Dec 21 2017, 5:02 pm

I was also upset when I saw that article.
They very much stress the crimes and then subtley mention that those charges were not founded.
Very slanted and dusturbing.
BH he is free!

amother

Crimson

Thu, Dec 21 2017, 10:24 pm

amother wrote:

The prosecution's case on the immigration claims fell apart. Each and every state witness was disqualified or had their credibility impeached. The prosecution could not make a single claim stick.

The procedural misconduct issue couldn't stick because the judge was in with the prosecution, leading to the appeal based on judicial misconduct. The judicial misconduct claim lost on procedural grounds.