Media Blackout Continues as City Contradicts Air America
By Robert A. Hahn Posted in Breaking News — Comments (54) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Previously on St. Elsewhere...
- New York City's Department of Investigation has been looking into approximately $800,000 in "loans" that were made to the liberal radio network Air America by a local charity, the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club. The money came from government grants that had been earmarked for services to needy children and Alzheimer's patients.
At the center of the scandal is Evan Cohen, the former chairman of Air America, who was in charge of the network while also serving as Gloria Wise's director of development. The controller of the non-profit says that Cohen funneled $613,000 to himself and Air America without her authorization or knowledge.
Air America has been saying that it had agreed to pay the money back, but claimed the plans were put on hold because of the city probe. "We're waiting for directions from the investigators on how to proceed," Air America spokeswoman Jamie Horn said.
Today the Department of Investigation said there is nothing to prevent the radio network from repaying its debt immediately.
"DOI has done nothing and given no instruction preventing payment of money owed to Gloria Wise [Boys & Girls Club]. Any statements to the contrary are inaccurate," said DOI spokesman Keith Schwam.
More below...
It would appear that Air America would be out of business today were it not for this incredibly timely six-figure "loan" of taxpayer funds from a city- and federally-funded charity.
At first it was wondered how in the world Mr. Cohen was able to convince Gloria Wise management that Air America represented a credit-worthy borrower when it was widely known at the time that the fledgling network faced imminent bankruptcy. But now it appears that Gloria Wise management did not know they had even made such a loan.
Still more amazing is that upon receiving the funds, the left hand of Air America's investors sold the network — now containing $800,000 in taxpayer money — to the right hand of most of the same investors, who now called themselves Piquant LLC.
At first Piquant denied any responsibility, claiming that the "previous owners" had taken on the debt; the money would have to be recovered from the now-cratered Progress Media.
Once it became apparent that Piquant and Progess Media were the same people (minus the now-disgraced Mr. Cohen), Piquant's story changed to "we have agreed to pay it back." But that was months ago, and as of today they have not paid anything.
In spite of what appears to be fraud involving almost a million dollars in taxpayer money, and a serious disruption in services to needy children as the city scrambled to line up alternate providers, the city's "newspaper of record," The New York Times, has yet to write a single word about these events. Nor has any other outlet in the so-called "mainstream media" seen fit to treat the diversion of $800,000 in taxpayer money into a bankrupt private business as "news."
Were it not for the New York Post, the New York Sun, and a firestorm in the blogosphere, none of us would know anything about this, prompting Investors Business Daily to ask today, "Is it because there are no mean ol' conservatives to blame?"
« Toward an Understanding of the Obamian Language — Comments (4) | The "Intelligence" Community Sounds Off... Again — Comments (53) »
Media Blackout Continues as City Contradicts Air America 54 Comments (0 topical, 54 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
So far, nothing heard. Usually, the WSJ is the primary source for piercing the caca messages the NYT now readily peddles. Plus, WSJ has plenty of good investigative reporters, is THE MSM's most readily recognized SubjectMatterExpert on issues of money (such as, embezzlement), and it's based IN NYC. Its silence on this matter makes me wonder if there's really any "there" there.
- given the fact that NO mainstream news agency has reported on it, including such Liberal stallwarts as the Wall Street Journal, I think we might want to wait and see what the full story is.
So in other words, the same standard they've been following with the Valerie Plame business.
So in other words, the same standard they've been following with the Valerie Plame business.
I can't speak for the pundits but I personally have said many times here that we should wait and see what the Grand Jury has to say.
The problem with punditry today is there is absolutely no accountability. Doesn't matter if you are on the Left or Right. You can say whatever you feel like saying and if you are completely and utterly wrong it's laughed off and on to the next controversy du jour.
This is why I put pundits, for the most part, just above talk radio hosts and just below protozoa on the life chain. There are a few exceptions but they are few and far between.
The WSJ's news department is as liberal as the editorial department is conservative. Also, is the WSJ indexed by Google? If it's not, I'd never know what was in there.
So I guess you can really only find out the truth by reading the Washington Times and New York Sun, those bastions of objective journalism.
Shoot the messenger. Paula Jones: trailer trash. Kathleen Wiley: angry job seeker. Washington Times and New York Sun reporting on a criminal investigation: biased.
Can't forget about the Edwin R. Murrow of the 21st Century.
As I said I really couldn't care less about Air America. I think they suck as much as Hannity, Savage, and Limbaugh.
But to deny the Washington Times and New York Sun's OVERT bias is silly. Now to be honest I find the Sun's bias to be more acceptable than the Times'. But that could be more because the Sun is relatively new and the Washington Times has a long history of partisanship.
I really have no idea what Paula Jones or Kathleen Wiley have to do with this. Are we going to play dueling victims? Ok. I'll see your Paula Jones and raise you an Anita Hill and an Eric Shinseki.
I always thought of Drudge as a news agregator who occasionally comes up with rumors and calls them news.
on lack of bias has nothing to do with the story. And I was simply pointing out that you were pointing a finger at the media covering the story in the same way the Clinton cabal attacked the credibility of the accusers rather than addressing the charge.
Were I you and trying to play "dueling victims" I'd at least take the time to find two who a)were victims and b)were not lionized and beatified by the media.
He's definitely a news aggregator, and often a news aggrivator, but his site is not a blog and never has been, even though many people everywhere on the political spectrum keep calling it that. I would recommend that both sides refrain from doing it until he actually starts a Drudge Blog on the site, because his commentary on the articles he links to is virtually nil.
of my comment did you dissent with?
I agree with you. I never considered him a blog.
Are terms similar to terrorist/freedom fighter. All depends on perspective.
Paula Jones was used just as much by the Right as she was villified by the Left. Guys like Emmitt Tyrell or Richard Scaife couldn't have cared less about her. As for the legitimacy of her claims, wasn't her case tossed out? In sexual harassment suits that usually suggests a pretty weak case since in most cases a settlement is reached.
I don't have a problem with those news agencies reporting on it. However in this day of nearly limitless news agencies I rarely give credence to a story that is sourced SOLELY in partisan news organizations.
criteria is of a lot of use to you, but hardly useful to the rest of us.
anything out of hand based on one's biases and prejudices is either useful or commonsense.
... rather than addressing the charge? I'm glad you think its a problem
Both Joe Wilson and I agree
But he also occasionally breaks big stories. When I was a lefty, I hated Drudge with a passion. Did you know that Drudge went to Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring, Maryland, along with Goldie Hawn and lots of other Important People? It's true, but he apparently was a bit ostracised as an adolescent.
Nevertheless, he filters links and news stories but occasionally comes up with some real gems -- and some real stinkers. As much as MSM journalists might hate his guts, he's been one of the Internet's real innovators. I just don't like it when he's called a blog -- by either party -- because he isn't. And as I've advised people here before, if a Drudge story is particularly controversial or explosive, make sure you can either: 1) Get it from a second source or 2) Personally know it is true before commenting on it. Those are my guidelines after having been burned by a couple of his non-stories in the past. But I still check him out a couple of times a day, and I will guarantee you that he's got a larger network of people who feed him breaking news stories than 95% of the mainstream journalists out there. They can stamp their feet and scream about that, but tough nuts. I say, in the aggregate to Matt Drudge, no matter what a pimple-faced loser he might have been in high school: You done pretty good, man.
- wasn't her case tossed out? In sexual harassment suits that usually suggests a pretty weak case since in most cases a settlement is reached.
as the media has adopted Joe Wilson as a cause celebre it is kind of hard finding a cabal to attack him beyond acknowledging the manifold lies he admits he told... or as he quaintly calls it "misspoke."
It doesn't count. You are arguing with a Known Fact™
it is kind of hard finding a cabal to attack him
Really? I found one
Ken Mehlman championed a number of untrue talking points regarding Wilson, which we won't get into individually here, since its another topic. (And I doubt you would appreciate a mediamatters link ;) )
Show me a case where criticisms against a political entity, either side, didn't result in attacks against the critic's credibility, and I'll show you a miracle
than pundits have been reporting on the Plame matter, and most of the reporting has been breathless inuendo that Rove did something wrong. So, it is untrue that the MSM has not been "reporting". Although, I would agree that the "reporters" involved are little more than disguised pundits, as their facts rarely pan out and their stories are usually mostly opinion.
my too short post: I dunno what Flyerhawk meant, what I mean is witholding judgement on the issue until it is confirmed by other sources or shown to be false. Neither discounting nor accepting, just demanding evidence beyond the say-so of a biased source.
find a Joe Stalin source, too.
Actually, I don't see a problem with Mehlman's talking points as they have the virtue as being as true as anything Wilson has said and he certainly isn't a cabal. Usually it take at least two persons to constitute a cabal.
I'm not discounting it however I don't treat obviously partisan sources to be completely credible without corroborating evidence. This is true of both Left and Right sources.
Silly people. Until the MSM realizes that it was Karl Rove that convinced Cohen to missappropriate the money, ultimately to be exposed, thereby discrediting Air America, why should you expect a story?
waiting until the story is old news and quickly buried, a la Eason Jordan affair.
The other thing about drudge is a lot of the time he has the same Crap the MSM has.. His headlines for days were on Michael Jackson.. Give me a break.. I stopped going there because it sounded too much like a grocery store rag...
LOL
I guess that even though it has been widely reported and confirmed that there is an actual investigation going on about $800,000 being transferred from a non profit org. to Air America, since it was three "biased" news agencies, and not the "Mainstream Media" doing the reporting, it just doesn't exist.
NY City CONFIRMS that an investigation is ongoing, but that is not good enough for half of the posters on this board. nope. no siree.
Checked over at DU and they are claiming that it is just lies from the mean old Rethugs, not an ounce of the story is true.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
regardless of the opinions of some.
I would consider the following news agencies to be more credible than the Washington Times.
The Wall Street Journal
FoxNews
The New York Times
The Washington Post
The Chicago Tribune
USA Today
Reuters
Bloomberg
Newsday
Dallas Morning News
CNN
MSNBC
Financial Times
There are others as well but that's a start.
Air America isn't the bad guy in this. Evan Cohen is. Partisans are looking to make hay and disparage Air America.
You want to rail against Air America? Go ahead. I won't lose a minute of sleep over it. But at least understand YOUR motivation.
the money? If not Air America, then why is Piquant LLC agreeing to pay the money back? Oh, was Enron at bad guy?
Evan Cohen's decision to take Gloria Wise money and put it into Air America.
who got the money? If not Air America, then why are they giving it back?
and then give the money to someone else that other person hasn't done anything wrong.
This: He recognized before almost anyone else did that it wasn't money or connections or a multimillion dollar website that could make someone an important news voice. His format now looks old and clunky, but when Drudge was new, he was a revolutionary -- and he's now a multimillionaire. Although people in the MSM will always hate him, and Bill Moyers will go to his grave despising him, they will never be able to deny that he outsmarted them and made a mark. Arthur Sulzburger may shake his fists in anger from sunrise to sunset, but it has never changed Drudge.
accessory after the fact, how about receiving stolen goods, how about conspiracy?
It's not quite that simple, Flyerhawk. If when you rob this bank you are the chairman of a very closely held corporation, and you put the money into the corporation, and immediately all the other investors form a new entity and buy the corporation's only asset, leaving nothing but a husk, it sorta looks like they tried to abscond with the money, leaving the debt in hands of a paper corporation with no assets.
In fact that is what they tried to do, until people figured out it was the same guys. Then they said, "Well, OK, we'll pay it back." Except they haven't. And it may still be that paying it back will bankrupt Air America.
You said that if you robbed a bank and then gave the money to someone else that other person hasn't done anything wrong.
Knowingly receiving stolen property is a crime.
If the other person in your example refuses to give the money back that is also a crime.
Both of these may apply to the Board of Air America or Piquant, whatever they want to call themselves.
I should have been a little more detailed but my point was simply that AS OF RIGHT NOW the investigation seems to be focused on Cohen.
It remains to be seen what happens from it.
Two different issues.
Is the investigation about Gloria Wise's money being improperly spent or is it about Air America's accounting practices?
It was only covered by The Washington Times and The New York Sun.
I admit to an error and you decide that one more jab is necessary.
but they haven't done it yet, do you know if the Democrat Party ever paid back all those illegal contributions Clinton, Gore, and the party received during the 1996 campaign?
Evan Cohen is most definitely slimy. They did a documentary on the creationg of Air America and if there was one guy that came off looking really slimy it was Cohen who exuded sheister.
Secondly I dislike Air America as much as any Right Wing news program. Least common denominator stuff that appeals to the ignorant of the Left rather than the Right.
Lastly I do agree that it is somewhat odd that the New York Times hasn't made mention of it. However doing a google search of it yields that the news "agencies" reporting on this story right now are Newsmax, Worldnet, The New York Sun, and Washington Times, and IBD. These are all ardent Conservative news sources, except possibly IBD.
The articles I have read so far are a bit misleading. This is more an investigation into Cohen and his actions while head of Air America, which he left well over a year ago. The attempt by these newspapers to take jabs at Air America rather than at Evan Cohen betrays AT LEAST as much of a bias as the Times' non-reporting. And given the fact that NO mainstream news agency has reported on it, including such Liberal stallwarts as the Wall Street Journal, I think we might want to wait and see what the full story is.