Articles Feature

Jury Finds Smiley Violated Morals Clause

by richard04087

PBS to Be Awarded at Least $1.5 Million

Added March 5:

And the Winners Are — Black, Latino Voters:
Media Report Centrality of Party’s Darker ‘Base’
NABJ to Query Members on Capitalizing ”Black’
. . . Readers Have as Many Questions as Answers
Katrice Hardy Named Editor of Indy Star
Asian Americans See Ties to Coronavirus as Racist
. . . NABJ Not Expecting Virus to Stop July Convention

Support Journal-isms
Tavis Smiley, center, his mother, Joyce, and Jeffrey D. Robinson, one of his lawyers, leave District of Columbia Superior Court Monday after closing arguments in a breach-of-contract lawsuit with PBS. (Credit: Keith L. Alexander/Washington Post)

PBS to Be Awarded at Least $1.5 Million

“A jury on Wednesday found that former PBS host Tavis Smiley violated the morals clause of his contract by having affairs with multiple subordinates,” Gene Maddaus reported for Variety.

“Smiley sued PBS in February 2018, alleging that the broadcaster had used a sham investigation as a pretext to cancel his show. PBS countersued, claiming that Smiley’s sexual conduct constituted a breach of their contract.

“The jury began deliberating on Monday, and issued its verdict in favor of PBS on Wednesday morning. PBS will be awarded at least $1.5 million. The D.C. Superior Court judge will have to determine the total amount of damages.

” ‘We are pleased with the jury’s decision,’ a PBS spokesperson said in a statement. ‘PBS expects our producing partners to provide a workplace where people feel safe and are treated with dignity and respect. It was important for us to ensure that the courageous women who came forward were able to share their stories and that we continue to uphold the values and standards of our organization.’

“The jurors heard evidence over the last three weeks, including deposition videos of six women who accused Smiley of misconduct. One woman who accused Smiley of sexual harassment left the show and received a $325,000 settlement. . . .”

Keith L. Alexander added in the Washington Post, “Outside the courtroom after the verdicts were read, three jurors said the panel found the cumulative testimony of the women to be ‘credible.’

” ‘This wasn’t just “he said, she said,” ‘ said one of the jurors, a 38-year-old man from Northeast Washington. ‘This was “he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said.” ‘

“Three jurors who spoke to The Washington Post asked that their names not be used to protect their privacy.

“The jurors said they also arrived at their verdicts based on what they determined as Smiley’s ‘lack of contrition.’

“ ‘He just kept saying everything was a lie. Not, “I don’t remember,” or, “It was so long ago I can’t recall.” He kept saying everything all of these women were saying was a lie,’ said one 35-year-old man from Northeast. . . .”

More to come

Netflix’s ‘New Evidence’ in Malcolm X Killing Challenged

Feb. 27, 2020

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is malcolm-x-carbine-ebony.jpg
The late Don Hogan Charles, who later worked for the New York Times, took this iconic photograph of Malcolm X with a rifle in his New York home, fearing for his family. It appeared in Ebony’s September 1964 issue, five months before Malcolm’s assassination. A week prior to his death, the home was firebombed with a Molotov cocktail.

Some Call Film’s Assertion Bogus or Old News

The “Who Killed Malcolm X?” docuseries on Netflix is receiving scathing blowback from Malcolm X scholars critical of what they say is the black-on-black-crime framing of the series, which has been labeled in the mainstream media as containing “new evidence” that critics scoff is either bogus or has been in the public domain for decades.

“A Netflix documentary has presented new evidence about the assassination of Malcolm X,” CBS News declared a week ago.

Reporter Maurice DuBois asked series producer Phil Bertelsen what he would like to see happen. “I hope he gets exonerated,” Bertelsen said of Norman 3X Butler, now known as Muhammad Abdul Aziz, and one of those who served time for the killing. Producer Nailah Sims added that she hopes Aziz gets “a fighting chance to clear his name.”

“A fighting chance to set the record straight and rewrite history,” DuBois concluded in the Feb. 21 broadcast.

John Leland also wrote Feb. 6 in the New York Times, updated Feb. 7, of “new evidence.”

“Some new evidence comes from a six-part documentary called ‘Who Killed Malcolm X?,’ streaming on Netflix Feb. 7, which posits that two of the men convicted could not have been at the scene that day.

“Instead it points the finger at four members of a Nation of Islam mosque in Newark, N.J., depicting their involvement as an open secret in their city. One even appeared in a 2010 campaign ad for then-Newark mayor Cory Booker.”

Series that aired on Netflix first appeared on the Fusion network in August 2019, but prompted news stories this month when the Manhattan District Attorney’s office said it “will begin a preliminary review of the matter.” (Credit: Netflix)

However, as this column reported in 2010, one of the four had already been fingered: “Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a historian who writes for the Woodson Review and other publications of the respected Association for the Study of African American Life and History, identified the trigger man on his blog last month as William Bradley, about 72 years old, and known today as [Al-]Mustafa Shabazz.

“‘ ‘He is the man who fired the first and deadliest shot which ripped through the chest of the powerful Black leader on that cold 21st day of February, 1965,’ Muhammad wrote. ‘How ironic is it that “Willie” Bradley appears in a recent public safety campaign commercial for Mayor Cory Booker‘ of Newark?”

Other Malcolm scholars say that Aziz’s alibi — that he was not in the Audubon Ballroom when Malcolm was killed — is bogus, and that the crime was bigger than four members of the Nation of Islam mosque in Newark.

In 1993, historian Zak A. Kondo (pictured on C-SPAN), who teaches at Baltimore City Community College, wrote a definitive account of the assassination. Muhammad cited Kondo’s work in reaching his conclusions in 2010.

In his 1993 report, Kondo wrote, “This author contends that Malcolm’s murder resulted from three intertwined conspiracies,” according to a manuscript this columnist reported on at the time from Rochester, N.Y.

“The first was orchestrated by FBI agents who employed various schemes to oust Malcolm from the Nation of Islam, provoke a war between him and the NOI and to set up his murder.

“The second conspiracy — fed by the first — was orchestrated by the NOI hierarchy, was authorized by New Jersey Muslims to plan and execute the murder.

“The third was orchestrated by the New York City Police Department, which compromised Malcolm’s security, permitted all but one of the assassins to escape, and framed two innocent men.”  


A. Peter Bailey (pictured, by Jason Miccolo Johnson) edited the newsletter for Malcolm’s Organization of Afro-American Unity, and appears in the Netflix documentary. He told the Journal-isms Roundtable this month that the film title’s question “Who Killed Malcolm X?” “was answered by Zak Kondo in 1993.” That’s when Kondo published his “ConspiracyS: Unraveling the Assassination of Malcolm X.”

In fact, Kondo was interviewed twice by the “Who Killed Malcolm X?” team, in sittings totaling 12 to 13 hours, he told Journal-isms this week.

But Kondo’s role was reduced to that of a bit player in the film, he said, subservient to the story line that featured Mohammad.

“Decades after the assassination of African American leader Malcolm X, an activist embarks on a complex mission seeking truth in the name of justice,” the Netflix summary says.

Kondo told Journal-isms, “It seems that all they were interested in was the Nation of Islam. They were not interested in looking at the broader picture. . . . I was kind of shocked” on seeing the final product. He said he plans to update his 1993 book and have it republished in April.

Bailey, who has written and spoken extensively about Malcolm since the assassination, is working on a book about the international profile, particularly in Africa, of the man he calls “Brother Malcolm.” On two recent broadcast appearances, Bailey said that amid the tensions of the Cold War, the FBI and other American authorities were angered and embarrassed by the Soviets’ propaganda victories in the 1950s and ’60s amid worldwide coverage of how the United States treated African Americans.

Malcolm visited Africa and lined up support among leaders there for bringing the United States before the United Nations on human rights charges. Herb Boyd, a New York journalist and author, identified a black CIA agent who was shadowing Malcolm at the time.

In the 1992 page-turner “The Judas Factor: the Plot to Kill Malcolm X,” author Karl Evanzz (pictured) tells how Assistant FBI Director William Sullivan circulated a memo urging that the FBI pick a “new national leader” once Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X and Elijah Muhammad, leader of the Nation of Islam, were destroyed. Others, including Bailey, also cite that same memo in suggesting a motive for government complicity in Malcolm’s killing.

Evanzz, a former Washington Post researcher as well as an author, is perhaps the documentary’s harshest critic. He devoted at least one blog post to it.

“Some have asked why I wasn’t in the series,” Evanzz wrote Feb. 12.

“I was asked by Shayla Harris (pictured), one of the African [Americans] behind the camera, to be interviewed for it, but I declined. Why? Because . . . I asked her whether certain people would be interviewed and the answer was what I expected, so I told her that I could not be part of it.

“The people I referred to are responsible for some of the most despicable lies ever cast on Malcolm X’s legacy.

“Despite data I sent to [Ark Media] via Ms. Harris, they chose to go with the erroneous proposition that all of the assassins were from New Jersey and that Butler was framed. They conveniently show the footage of William Bradley fighting to free [Thomas] Hagan, but they omit the footage of Norman [3X] Butler at the same scene.”

The last surge in interest in Malcolm’s assassination came in 2011, after the late Manning Marable, a historian at Columbia University, died days before the publication of the controversial book, “Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention.”

Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, central figure in the Netflix series. (Credit: Netflix)

“One of Marable’s sources was none other than Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, the person at the center of the Netflix series,” Evanzz writes. “Muhammad claims that his obsession with Malcolm X’s murder ‘changed the trajectory of my life.’ The truth is that his life had no trajectory as far as anyone knows. He’s kind of fumbled his way through life until now.

“He has not written any books or lengthy articles about the assassination. He has only written one blog of note, and that was because a friend of his from Howard University led him to Bradley’s whereabouts. Everything else in the series is based on my books and the book by Zak Kondo. . . .”

The Innocence Project, which is handling the case of Butler, now known as Aziz, along with attorney David B. Shanies, insists that 81-year-old Aziz spent 20 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. He was paroled in 1985 and has maintained he was nowhere near the scene when Malcolm was killed, the “new evidence.”

However, Evanzz also writes, “In the linked video titled ‘The Black Zapruder Film: They Killed Malcolm X,’ skip to the sixteen-minute mark and you will see a black man wearing a tweed coat and black hat at a forty-five-degree angle wrestling his way through the crowd as Malcolm X is removed by stretcher from the Audubon Ballroom and taken to the hospital across the street.

“The man is none other than Norman 3X Butler. He lied in 1965 about not being involved in the assassination, and he has been lying about it ever since. . . . “

“African American researchers and scholars identified William Bradley as far back as 1993. Not one major newspaper reviewed Kondo’s book and only one reviewed my book, The Judas Factor: The Plot to Kill Malcolm X. Had they done so, Bradley might have been convicted for his role in the assassination.

“The media rarely listens when a black person exposes injustices. The public has to wait until the truth is discovered by a white person before it deserves attention, before it’s validated. . . .”

Danny Frost, director of communications for Manhattan D.A. Cyrus Vance Jr., told Journal-isms via email Wednesday, “District Attorney Vance has met with representatives from the Innocence Project and associated counsel regarding this matter. He has determined that the district attorney’s office will begin a preliminary review of the matter, which will inform the office regarding what further investigative steps may be undertaken. District Attorney Vance has assigned Senior Trial Counsel Peter Casolaro and Conviction Integrity Deputy Chief Charles King to lead this preliminary review.”

Casolaro was on the team that reinvestigated and dismissed the case of the Central Park Five, now known as the Exonerated Five.

Asked to comment on the criticism and provided with Evanzz’s comments as an example, the filmmakers said through a spokeswoman:

“Our goal with our documentary series, Who Killed Malcolm X?, was to explore lingering questions about how the case was handled and to examine numerous leads that were not pursued or investigated 55 years ago. Some of these leads might have spoken to the guilt or innocence of the accused, most notably Muhammad A. Aziz (formerly known as Norman 3X Butler) who served 20 years in prison for the murder.

“As with any controversial event, the assassination of Malcolm X can often veer into the realm of conjecture and rumor. For that reason, our investigation relied on a strict adherence to facts that we could corroborate with hard evidence or primary interviews with knowledgeable sources. We stand by the resulting six-part series, including all evidence and interviews therein.

“Karl Evanzz has written extensively about the death of Malcolm X, the Nation of Islam and the FBI’s surveillance of both. We offered Mr. Evanzz numerous opportunities to participate in this series and be asked rigorous questions on-camera about his knowledge. But, he refused. His current assertions about the reasons for that refusal [are] news to us.

“We wish Mr. Evanzz continued success in his research endeavors. — Rachel Dretzin, Phil Bertelsen, Shayla Harris, Nailah Sims (pictured).”

Despite his disappointment with the series, Kondo sees a bright side. “It’s got people’s attention,” he said by telephone. “I’ll take whatever I can get, and [perhaps it will] also take us to the truth of Malcolm X.”  

Boyd, who co-authored “The Diary of Malcolm X” with Malcolm’s daughter Ilyasah Shabazz, agrees.

“One vital thing that could come from reopening Malcolm’s murder is the unsealing of police files on surveillance of Malcolm, some of which were released in 1993 but never reached conclusion, especially the way they tracked him from the spring of ’64 to Malcolm’s death,” Boyd said by email.

“To me, this was Malcolm’s most significant year given his travels abroad. And, to that end, I wonder if the new investigation would also include disclosure of the CIA surveillance. Reopening a case has to mean opening documents that have never been made available to the public and to scholars.

“As for my role in the documentary, I was lucky, I guess, to get at least a word or two in, and I may get a few more in the planned documentary on the relationship between Malcolm and Muhammad Ali by Netflix.”

Support Journal-isms


Facebook users: “Like” “Richard Prince’s Journal-isms” on Facebook.

Follow Richard Prince on Twitter @princeeditor

Richard Prince’s Journal-isms originates from Washington. It began in print before most of us knew what the internet was, and it would like to be referred to as a “column.” Any views expressed in the column are those of the person or organization quoted and not those of any other entity.   Send tips, comments and concerns to Richard Prince at journal-isms-owner@yahoogroups.com

About Richard Prince

View previous columns (after Feb. 13, 2016).

Related posts

TV One Implicated in Leak to Donna Brazile

richard

Alcindor Praised for ‘Nasty Question’

richard

Sound Alarm on ‘Slow Creep’ Against Democracy

richard

Leave a Comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.