"Frontline" tonight - The Prosecutors
DOROTHY RABINOWITZ'S MEDIA LOG
<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/medialog/?id=105001974"; target="_blank">The Prosecutors</a>
[quote]In the early 1980s, a contagion of child sex-abuse scandals began erupting around the nation - events that brought non-stop TV coverage only slightly less fevered than the strange and voluminous reports emanating from the prosecutors' offices, about bad clowns, molestation in magic rooms, or hot air balloons. Charges bearing no resemblance to the sorts of accusations now being leveled at Roman Catholic priests, and for good reason.
Certain of the prosecutors responsible for these now notorious cases would go on to bigger things.
District Attorney Scott Harshbarger, who brought the case against the Amirault family of Massachusetts, became the state's attorney general, and now heads Common Cause, a liberal lobby group that aims to reform the political system. Janet Reno, Dade County attorney, came to fame as a child advocate for prosecutions she would win on entirely concocted testimony - among them, the case of Miami police officer Grant Snowden, who spent 11 years in Florida prisons until a federal court finally overturned his conviction. Ms. Reno's later career needs no reporting.
Tonight's "Frontline" program (airing 9-10 p.m. ET, on PBS) deals with Ms. Reno's child-abuse prosecutions, notably that of Frank Fuster.
In 1984, Mr. Fuster and wife Ileana were charged with sexual crimes committed against children at the Fusters' Miami day-care service. Ms. Reno, who brought in specialists in "behavior change" to pressure Mr. Fuster's frightened teenage wife into giving testimony against him, appears briefly in the film. She also made, according to Ms. Fuster, night visits to her cell to add her persuasions to those of the behavior changers.
The pressures worked. The young woman, who had up until then fervently declared that they were innocent, and that no crimes had occurred, took the deal. She then took the stand to deliver a halting recital - much like those of the children who delivered rehearsed accusatory testimony in these cases, outlining what she supposedly saw her husband do to a child...<hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/medialog/?id=105001974"; target="_blank">The Prosecutors</a>
[quote]In the early 1980s, a contagion of child sex-abuse scandals began erupting around the nation - events that brought non-stop TV coverage only slightly less fevered than the strange and voluminous reports emanating from the prosecutors' offices, about bad clowns, molestation in magic rooms, or hot air balloons. Charges bearing no resemblance to the sorts of accusations now being leveled at Roman Catholic priests, and for good reason.
Certain of the prosecutors responsible for these now notorious cases would go on to bigger things.
District Attorney Scott Harshbarger, who brought the case against the Amirault family of Massachusetts, became the state's attorney general, and now heads Common Cause, a liberal lobby group that aims to reform the political system. Janet Reno, Dade County attorney, came to fame as a child advocate for prosecutions she would win on entirely concocted testimony - among them, the case of Miami police officer Grant Snowden, who spent 11 years in Florida prisons until a federal court finally overturned his conviction. Ms. Reno's later career needs no reporting.
Tonight's "Frontline" program (airing 9-10 p.m. ET, on PBS) deals with Ms. Reno's child-abuse prosecutions, notably that of Frank Fuster.
In 1984, Mr. Fuster and wife Ileana were charged with sexual crimes committed against children at the Fusters' Miami day-care service. Ms. Reno, who brought in specialists in "behavior change" to pressure Mr. Fuster's frightened teenage wife into giving testimony against him, appears briefly in the film. She also made, according to Ms. Fuster, night visits to her cell to add her persuasions to those of the behavior changers.
The pressures worked. The young woman, who had up until then fervently declared that they were innocent, and that no crimes had occurred, took the deal. She then took the stand to deliver a halting recital - much like those of the children who delivered rehearsed accusatory testimony in these cases, outlining what she supposedly saw her husband do to a child...<hr></blockquote>
Comments
That particular Frontline episode is a couple of years old. I saw it while ago when I was still in law school. Its quite a good show, and as is usual w/ Frontline, doesn't pull any punches. I recommend it to anyone who thinks Law & Order is the way state criminal justice works.
Thoth
PS: an even better frontline is the one about the Innocence Project.
DOROTHY RABINOWITZ'S MEDIA LOG
<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/medialog/?id=105001974"; target="_blank">The Prosecutors</a></strong>
Is this an old Frontline or a new Frontline episode? I remember watching a Frontline episode about this contagion of false child sex abuse cases about a decade ago. Classic case of a convergence between media incompetence (I'd say corruption), greed, and unfathomnable acts.
Interesting that opinionjournal.com would use it as an example.
[ 04-25-2002: Message edited by: THT ]</p>
<strong>Ok, I'll bite. What's the point? Is this meant to be an indictment of prosecutors who are also Democrats?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>
Is this an old Frontline or a new Frontline episode? I remember watching a Frontline episode about this contagion of false child sex abuse cases about a decade ago. Classic case of a convergence between media incompetence (I'd say corruption), greed, and unfathomnable acts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/press/2018i.html"; target="_blank">Here's</a> the press release.
[quote]<strong>Interesting that opinionjournal.com would use it as an example.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dorothy Rabinowitz has been all over these cases from day one. She won a Pulitzer for her coverage of the Grant Snowden story.
[ 04-25-2002: Message edited by: tmp ]</p>
<strong>
I for one don't believe in either a vast rightwing conspiracy or left media bias in general (sure, certain outlets, but not overall), but, I guess that wasn't your observation.
I'm trying to read the press release, but my stupid Wintel box at work is puking on it.
As far a Reno stepping down, it doesn't matter. Neither dem candidate's going to defeat Jeb (not a value judgment, just a guess).
Thoth
[ 04-25-2002: Message edited by: Thoth2 ]</p>
<strong>
Ok, so what was the point? I for one don't believe in either a vast rightwing conspiracy or left media bias, but, I guess that wasn't your point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not everything is about politics. The point is prosecutors ran amok and lives were ruined. Isn't that enough of a story?
<strong>
Not everything is about politics. The point is prosecutors ran amok and lives were ruined. Isn't that enough of a story?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course that's enough of a story, but I guess I'm no longer shocked by this reality owing to my experience, and so I missed this as your intended message. My job reveals these nasty things all of the time. My bad.
I'm actually quite concerned about the knee jerk rejiggering of the federal criminal laws after 9/11 because of the vast power given to AUSA's to exercise their prosecutorial discretion. I'm not sure which is worse: political appointee's w/ prosecutorial discretion (fed) or elected officials w/ prosecutorial discretion (states).
Makes me shiver.
Thoth
Of course that's enough of a story, but I guess I'm no longer shocked by this reality owing to my experience, and so I missed this as your intended message. My job reveals these nasty things all of the time. My bad.</strong>
I thought roger_ramjet's first post wasn't all that impartial either, so it wasn't that hard to misread his intentions. My version of an impartial post would have been if the link and article came from the Frontline website itself, not an editorialist from WSJ.
Frontline IS the only televised journalistic reporting that I will ever watch, understand and believe.
Totally unbiased and straight forward. No one (no one...not 60 minutes, Dateline, 60 minutes II...no one)
**** the left and the right. They are always reporting the facts as they are and events and issues as they happen. Sometimes before they happen. I have constantly mentioned a report from them here and have gotten no response about it. Why? Because they are right...always. No arguments.
<strong>Ok. Let the bullshit pour...
Frontline IS the only televised journalistic reporting that I will ever watch, understand and believe.
Totally unbiased and straight forward. No one (no one...not 60 minutes, Dateline, 60 minutes II...no one)
**** the left and the right. They are always reporting the facts as they are and events and issues as they happen. Sometimes before they happen. I have constantly mentioned a report from them here and have gotten no response about it. Why? Because they are right...always. No arguments.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree that Frontline is the best television journalism out there. I watch it with great regularity and often change my perceptions based on the reportage. I can't believe you even mentioned Dateline. That's People magazine on TV.
I am puzzled about your "let the bullshit pour" comment, however. I don't read any of the previous posts to impugn the journalistic integrity of Frontline itself. I, for one, was only wondering what the purpose of the post here was, not the content of the show (which I have seen and was horrified by). Also, what is this report that you have constantly posted and received no comment on?
Thoth
<strong>I am puzzled about your "let the bullshit pour" comment, however. I don't read any of the previous posts to impugn the journalistic integrity of Frontline itself. I, for one, was only wondering what the purpose of the post here was, not the content of the show (which I have seen and was horrified by). Also, what is this report that you have constantly posted and received no comment on?
Thoth</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, sorry...I always seem to see any reporting from anywhere else as either liberal or conservative journalism...which can be the case. But Frontline always seems to get the liberal tag on it. Don't believe it. They always report things as they are. Been watching them for years...and I always seem to say to others..."told ya so...".
I have posted links and topics about their reporting. One was their report on Saudi Arabia...and guess what...the Saudi's are the scum of the Earth...thanks Frontline.
All in all the forum here has always been a great educational and enlightening experience on issues of the world. It sucks when we have to put tags on the sources when it is not always justified (ie: Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men"...IMHO...he's right on the mark).
Anyway...see the report...enlighten yourself...like we have done for the past 20 years... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>
Well, sorry...I always seem to see any reporting from anywhere else as either liberal or conservative journalism...which can be the case. But Frontline always seems to get the liberal tag on it. Don't believe it. They always report things as they are. Been watching them for years...and I always seem to say to others..."told ya so...".
I have posted links and topics about their reporting. One was their report on Saudi Arabia...and guess what...the Saudi's are the scum of the Earth...thanks Frontline.
All in all the forum here has always been a great educational and enlightening experience on issues of the world. It sucks when we have to put tags on the sources when it is not always justified (ie: Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men"...IMHO...he's right on the mark).
Anyway...see the report...enlighten yourself...like we have done for the past 20 years... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, out here in the boonies I don't get a PBS station. My wife and I used to park our butts in front of the tube every tues night where we used to live just to watch that (and nova of course).
I have seen the Prosecutors episode discussed herein. It's not a new one, unless it has been updated like they sometimes do.
I'm not sure how anyone can call it liberal when one of the most powerful pieces they've ever done was on the slaughter in Rwanda that was basically an indictment of the wholesale failure of the Clinton administration on this front. It had nothing to do with politics - it just threw the covers off.
Thoth
<strong>
I thought roger_ramjet's first post wasn't all that impartial either, so it wasn't that hard to misread his intentions. My version of an impartial post would have been if the link and article came from the Frontline website itself, not an editorialist from WSJ.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. That's where I learned that "Frontline" is doing this story tonight.
2. And you cab discount Dorothy Rabinowitz all you want. It's no reflection on her if you do. As I've said, she's won a Pulitzer for her coverage of this issue and there are people who probably owe their freedom because of her journalism.
[ 04-25-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>