For the second day in a row, Mr. Radler's testimony under direct examination was the top story in the CBC's The National newscast. Once again, correspondent Neil Macdonald reported on it. He started off with part of a quote from Conrad Black regarding greed. (The full quote is, "Greed has been severely underestimated and denigrated – unfairly so, in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with avarice as a motive, as long as it doesn't lead to dishonest or anti-social conduct." Found in this collection of quotes from him.) The retrospective irony in that quote is that Mr. Black spent the day listening to David Radler describing his greed. Mr. Radler testified that Mr. Black had called and said that parent company deserved some of the proceeds from the non-compete agreement, and that Mr. Radler had acceded to it; he had followed orders, he testified today. Later, he also testified that, in Mr. Macdonald's words, the “money grabs got bolder”, even taking place when buyers didn’t request a non-compete agreement. There were non-compete payments, also partially diverted, even for Horizon Publishing and Bradford, which both men partially owned. Mr. Radler also testified that he hasn't brought these payments, and the 'template' partial-divertment plan, to the attention of the Hollinger International audit committee because the committee wouldn’t have agreed perfunctorily to them; instead, they would have, in Mr. Radler's words, been “’very questioning.’”
There is also a webbed CBC report, by CBC News staff, that have been posted this evening. Although it doesn't quote Mr. Macdonald, it covers many of the day's events that he himself covered. It also has a link to Mr. Macdonald's report, broadbanded.
----------
This night, the last word goes to Douglas Bell, whose entry today in the Toronto Life Conrad Black Trial blog is called "Dazed and Confused." It's already drawn four comments, thanks in large part to a quote from Barbara Amiel Black's latest Maclean's column at its end.
Speaking of the TL blog: despite a journalists' consensus that this past day was the best day yet for the prosecution, the poll on its entry-roll page, as of about 10:40-or-so PM, had a result that was almost evenly divided between "Guilty" and "Not Guilty." It asks for votes "[b]ased on today's evidence." Evidently, that consensus isn't universal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Re your comment on the Toronto Life poll. The less then overwhelming vote for Not Guilty may very well be that most reasonable people have given up reading that particular blog due to the inane comments that follow. It appears to me that other than you and a few others that blog is used by those who want to express their hateful and ill-founded views. Again, thank you for your blog....
Thanks for the compliment, Nala, and thanks also for the information. I'm glad you're commenting here.
To be honest, I suspect that personal, and national, loyalties may have gotten in the way...not to mention echoes of Roger Martin, who is clearly unsympathetic to the corporate-governance movement as it is now.
I am not so sure that I gave you any information....its just my opinion.
I can certainly respect that there are people who have differing opinions on this case. However, to feel the need to express such venom towards the main defendant (and his family) personally is beyond my comprehension. Allowing these comments to be "published" cheapens the blog......and, furthermore, most comments do not even respond to the preceding article. Anyway, enough of the Toronto Life Blog...I have to get on with my reading right here......;-)
I have to admit that you caught me out. I didn't know you were referring to the bile in the "Dazed and Confused" entry specifically; I thought you were referring to 'freeping' the poll to the benefit of Conrad Black.
Happy reading. :)
I had to look up "freeping" :-)
What I meant was that most reasonable people (pro or con), who actually wait until there is any evidence, MAY have stopped visiting that blog...and hence voting....because of the Jerry Springer tone that has taken over.....
If you ask around about the term "diggbot," you'll find out worse.
Did a search on "diggbot". What would we do with out Google? And I thought Wikipedia was bogus...
I don't know if you are still reading comments this far down the page, however.....I did a search as you suggested and came up with Digg.com....hense my comment about Wikepedia. I needed my son to explain the "bot" part....duh!!! Now I know what YOU meant.
Actually, I had read it. I just thought you reached the 'nuff-said point.
If you haven't found out already, "diggbot" means a member of Digg.com who buries article (s)he doesn't like, often for no good reason. It's quasi-synonymous with "pest" and/or "self-righteous."
Post a Comment