Archives par mot-clé : video ads

Ratko Mladic Is Convicted in 1990s Slaughter of Bosnian Muslims

Prosecutors asked for a life sentence for Mr. Mladic. The presiding judge, Alphons Orie, agreed, saying that Mr. Mladic’s crimes “rank among the most heinous known to humankind.”

Photo

Many in Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina, watching a live broadcast of the trial cheered when the verdict was announced on Wednesday.

Credit
Dimitar Dilkoff/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Surprising many observers, Mr. Mladic appeared in court on Wednesday, wearing a dark suit and a red tie, as the three-judge panel handed down its ruling.

He sat impassively for the first 45 minutes of the judge’s address. But after his lawyers requested a five-minute break to allow him to go to the bathroom, Mr. Mladic did not reappear for almost an hour. Reporters were told he was having his blood pressure checked.

When he returned, he began shouting at the court in a dispute over his blood pressure. “You are lying, you are lying, you are lying,” Mr. Mladic said to the judge. “I don’t feel good.”

The judge ordered his removal, and guards grabbed him by both arms to take him out. Mr. Mladic was able to watch the rest of the proceedings on a screen elsewhere in the courthouse.

The verdict reverberated throughout the court building in The Hague — where dozens of survivors of the bloodshed, many of them widows or refugees, filled the public gallery, while others watched from monitors set up by the tribunal or followed it online — and across Europe.

In Bosnia, survivors wept and exulted as the verdict was broadcast live, while the reaction was muted in Serbia, where nationalism is rising once again.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The United Nations human rights chief, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, welcomed Mr. Mladic’s conviction as “a momentous victory for justice” that served notice to perpetrators of crimes, however powerful, that they would not escape justice.

Photo

International War Crimes Tribunal investigators in 1996 at the site of a mass grave for victims of the Srebrenica massacre near the village of Pilica, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Credit
Staton R. Winter/Associated Press

“Mladic is the epitome of evil,” Mr. al-Hussein said in a statement issued by his office in Geneva minutes after the judge pronounced the sentence.

The verdict was hardly in doubt, given the volume of evidence produced during the trial, which began in 2012. The sessions were at times halted or cut short because of Mr. Mladic’s health problems, and the trial itself was extended after the discovery of more mass graves.

Citing his fragile health, Mr. Mladic’s lawyers had urged that the verdict be postponed. Judges rejected those arguments — mindful, perhaps, of the case of Slobodan Milosevic, the former Serbian president who died in a prison cell in 2006 as his four-year trial was drawing to a close.

Mr. Mladic’s case was the last major trial handled by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, which the United Nations established in 1993 in response to the atrocities. After one final appellate ruling, expected this month, the tribunal will close its doors; a small successor court will deal with pending appeals and the retrial of two former intelligence chiefs from Serbia.

To varying degrees, Croats, Serbs and Bosnian Muslims (also known as Bosniaks) all committed atrocities during the 1991-95 violence that ensued after Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia voted for independence from Yugoslavia.

A number of Croats and Bosniaks were convicted by the tribunal. But the majority of trials involved Bosnian Serbs, because crimes in the name of Serbian interests and extreme nationalism were committed on a far greater scale. Of the 130,000 people killed in the Balkan wars of the 1990s, 100,000 died in Bosnia.

Along with Mr. Mladic, the other two men seen as among the main instigators of the bloodshed were Mr. Milosevic, who provided the Bosnian Serb separatists with funding, weapons and military personnel, and Mr. Karadzic, who was convicted last year and sentenced to 40 years in prison.

Photo

Mr. Mladic in Sarajevo in 1993.

Credit
Gabriel Bouys/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

If Mr. Karadzic was the brains behind the ethnic cleansing operations, Mr. Mladic was the muscle, leading a proxy army largely financed, armed and staffed at the top by Serbia.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The two men faced similar charges, although crucial differences stand out.

One was the compelling trail Mr. Mladic himself left by recording his meetings and telephone conversations with military officials, politicians or foreign envoys. They were discovered behind a false wall in Mr. Mladic’s home; included in that cache were 18 notebooks representing his wartime diaries, an extraordinary windfall, prosecutors said.

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

Mr. Mladic, whose handwriting was authenticated, listed meetings, including numerous times with the Serbian president, topics of discussion, strategy laid out, orders for ammunition and troop movements. In one telling entry on May 7, 1992, Mr. Mladic wrote that the Bosnian Serb leadership had discussed six strategic goals, of which the first and most important was “to separate from the Croats and Muslims forever.”

None of the 3,500 pages directly showed his own hand in crimes and few entries exist, or survive, from the days of the Srebrenica massacre. But many entries were used in various prosecutions, including Mr. Mladic’s, providing the kind of firsthand, dot-connecting accounts needed to prove a criminal case.

It was also the first trial in which prosecutors presented evidence from recently explored mass graves around an open-pit mine at Tomasica near Prijedor in Northern Bosnia.

They proved to be a dumping ground for Bosniaks killed or starved to death during the ethnic cleansing campaign around Prijedor, where the police operated concentration camps that became notorious for torture and rape.

The International Commission on Missing Persons, which uses DNA testing, said this month that so far 656 bodies from the mine have been identified, most of them men, all of them in civilian clothes. Those identified were among the nearly 6,000 people reported missing around Prijedor in the summer of 1992.

Photo

The coffins of 127 Srebrenica victims identified via DNA testing before burial at Potocari, in 2016.

Credit
Andrew Testa for The New York Times

But more bodies are emerging, including remains that were moved to other graves to hide the magnitude of the crime.

Mr. Mladic’s diary notes a request in 1992 from Simo Drljaca, the Prijedor police chief, asking for the army’s help to remove about 5,000 bodies buried in Tomasica by “burning them or grinding them or in any other way.” Mr. Mladic wrote that he replied, “You killed them, you bury them.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

At the height of the ethnic cleansing campaign, in 1992, close to 45,000 were killed or missing, almost half of the 100,000 who died in the Bosnian war. That year, the number of Bosnian refugees and internally displaced persons reached 2.6 million.

In court Mr. Mladic was unpredictable, veering between indifference and angry outbursts, charming or mocking his judges, shouting orders at his lawyers because he can barely write notes after suffering strokes.

He called the charges against him “monstrous” and said he was “defending Serbia and the Serbian people, not Ratko Mladic.”

But his failing health has been a continuing problem. Pressed by the judges, the prosecution cut back about 40 percent of the crimes cited in an earlier indictment.

Doctors said he had suffered two strokes before arriving in The Hague, and since then he has suffered from high blood pressure, diabetes, kidney stones and other ailments. Several crises, including what is presumed to have been a heart attack, forced a pause in the proceedings and a reduction of weekly sessions to four days instead of five.

Defense lawyers repeatedly warned that his health had deteriorated, and just this month prosecutors privately expressed worry that he might not live until the verdict or would be unable to attend.

Alan Cowell contributed reporting from London, and Nick Cumming-Bruce from Geneva.


Continue reading the main story

FCC Announces Plan to Repeal Net Neutrality

The clear winners from the move would be the giant companies that provide internet access to phones and computers, which have fought for years against broadband regulations. A repeal of the rules would allow the companies to exert more control over the online experiences of American consumers.

Big online companies like Amazon say that the telecom companies would be able to show favoritism to certain web services, by charging for accessing some sites but not others, or by slowing the connection speed to some sites. Small online companies say the proposal would hurt innovation. Only the largest companies, they say, would be able to afford the expense of making sure their sites received preferred treatment.

And consumers, the online companies say, may see their costs go up to get quality access to popular websites like Netflix.

The action “represents the end of net neutrality as we know it and defies the will of millions of Americans,” said Michael Beckerman, chief executive of the Internet Association, a lobbying group that represent Google, Facebook, Amazon and other tech firms.

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

But Mr. Pai said the internet rules were adopted to stop only theoretical harms. He said the old rules limited consumer choice and stifled investment in network expansion and upgrades.

He has also argued that the existing internet rules stop internet service companies from experimenting with new business models that could help them compete with online businesses like Netflix, Google and Facebook.

The plan to repeal the existing rules, passed in 2015, also reverses a hallmark decision by the agency to declare broadband as a service as essential as phones and electricity. That move created the legal foundation for the current rules and underscored the importance of high-speed internet service to the nation. It was put in place by Tom Wheeler, an F.C.C. chairman under President Obama.

Mr. Pai signaled his intention to dismantle the existing rules in April. The action on Tuesday by Mr. Pai, who was appointed chairman by President Trump, is the centerpiece of a deregulatory agenda that has also stripped television broadcasters, newspapers and telecom companies of a broad range of regulations meant to protect the public interest.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The telecom companies on Tuesday cheered Mr. Pai’s proposal.

“The removal of antiquated, restrictive regulations will pave the way for broadband network investment, expansion and upgrades,” said Jonathan Spalter, the chief executive of USTelecom, an industry lobbying group.

But consumer advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers said the move would harm consumers and internet businesses that have relied on the rules to ensure all content is equally available, and to make sure that speech is not stifled by broadband companies putting up barriers to certain internet sites.

Consumer groups say broadband companies have been incredibly profitable under the net neutrality rules and have expanded their networks into new communities and with faster speeds, despite complaints the rules hamper their businesses.

“Your internet service provider will be free to make online fast lanes and favor the content of its choice,” said Gigi Sohn, a former senior adviser to Mr. Wheeler at the F.C.C. “That it will take away your control of your internet experience and give it to Comcast, ATT and Verizon.”

Continue reading the main story

With turkey pardon, Trump spares Drumstick and Wishbone from Thanksgiving dinner

CLOSE

President Donald Trump pardons the national Thanksgiving turkey at the White House.
Time

President Trump exercised his pardon power on Tuesday, sparing two turkeys named Wishbone and Drumstick from becoming Thanksgiving dinner. 

« I’m pleased to report that unlike millions of other turkeys at this time of the year, Drumstick has a very, very bright future ahead of him, » Trump said at the pardoning, with first lady Melania and son Barron standing by his side and many extended family members in the audience.

When he approached Drumstick for the pardon, he exclaimed, « Big bird! » 

More: Meet Wishbone and Drumstick, the turkeys President Trump plans to pardon

More: Honest and Abe, turkeys Obama pardoned in 2015, are living their best lives in Virginia

Drumstick and Wishbone will live in « Gobbler’s Rest » at Virginia Tech, which the president described as « a beautiful place. » There, they’ll join Tater and Tot, the turkeys former president Barack Obama pardoned in 2016.

Trump joked that, while he has taken many steps to try to reverse Obama’s executive actions, the White House counsel’s office advised him not to try to overturn the Democratic president’s previous pardon of Wishbone and Drumstick’s predecessors.

« Tater and Tot’s pardons cannot under any circumstances be revoked, » he said. « So Tater and Tot, you can rest easy. » 

Trump’s first turkey pardoning is in keeping with a White House tradition of nearly three decades. Keeping up with the Thanksgiving-themed jokes, he noted that the first president to participate in the turkey event, Harry Truman, did not in fact pardon his feathered guest of honor.

« He was a tough cookie, » Trump said of Truman. « Today, I am going to be a much nicer president. »

The first official turkey pardoning was done by former president George H. W. Bush in 1989, and the tradition has been carried on by every president ever since. 

CLOSE

Abe and his understudy, Honest, were pardoned by President Obama in 2015 and now live on a beautiful farm in Virginia with their buddy, George.
USA TODAY

As Trump thanked members of the armed forces, police and first responders, he ignored shouted questions about whether he was going to pardon any people, according to pool reports.

Since taking office, the president has commented several times about his constitutional authority to grant reprieves and pardons. He’s exercised it once before, pardoning the controversial former sheriff Joe Arpaio back in August, without going through the usual process. 

As Trump pardoned the turkeys, some of his political critics wondered if he planned to use his pardoning power as the investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election continue. Several individuals – including Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his campaign and business associate Rick Gates – have been charged by special counsel Robert Mueller.

« Today, the president is publicly pardoning a Thanksgiving turkey, but there’s nothing to stop him from secretly pardoning a political turkey – and there is a lot of foul behavior at the White House, » Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat who sits on the House’s oversight panel, said in a statement.

Like many distinguished White House guests, Wishbone and Drumstick got special tours earlier on Tuesday. 

While Drumstick checked out the Rose Garden, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders brought Wishbone into the briefing room.

As the lucky turkey gobbled and wobbled near the podium, Sanders told reporters: « If you guys haven’t voted yet, you should do that … Two more minutes. »‘

Sanders was referring to a poll the White House posted on Twitter, asking people to vote on which turkey Trump would pardon in the ceremony. (Regardless of social media popularity, both turkeys will live.)

After a few minutes, Sanders escorted Wishbone to the back offices so that he and Drumstick could prepare to meet the president.

« They have a big appearance coming up, » Sanders said.

Shouted one reporter: « Thanks for the gaggle. »

Charlie Rose fired by CBS, and PBS drops his talk show over sexual harassment allegations

Charlie Rose’s CBS News career came to an unceremonious end Tuesday when the network fired him over allegations of sexual harassment.

“A short time ago we terminated Charlie Rose’s employment with CBS News, effective immediately,” CBS News President David Rhodes wrote in a note to staff. “This followed the revelation yesterday of extremely disturbing and intolerable behavior said to have revolved around his PBS program. Despite Charlie’s important journalistic contribution to our news division, there is absolutely nothing more important, in this or any organization, than ensuring a safe, professional workplace — a supportive environment where people feel they can do their best work. We need to be such a place.”

PBS followed with an announcement that it no longer will distribute “Charlie Rose,” the nightly talk show hosted by Rose since 1991.

“In light of yesterday’s revelations, PBS has terminated its relationship with Charlie Rose and canceled distribution of his programs,” a PBS spokesperson said in a statement. “PBS expects all the producers we work with to provide a workplace where people feel safe and are treated with dignity and respect.”

Gayle King and Norah O’Donnell, in 2012.

Rose’s serious demeanor and ability to engage a wide range of personalities in politics, the arts and business earned him respect and global recognition. He frequently jetted off to land interviews with world leaders.

“There is not a single person of note on the planet who does not know who he is,” said one CBS News executive who spoke on condition of anonymity. “His talent was so in the stratosphere.”

CBS had moved quickly Monday to suspend Rose, 75, after the Washington Post reported that day that eight women said they were subjected to inappropriate behavior while working with him. The story said Rose made unwanted sexual advances, appeared nude in their presence or groped them. His PBS talk show also was halted and there was no immediate update on the long-term status of the program.

“Make Me a Viral Video!”—Tackling Video Content the Better Way

Video content and other forms of multimedia are often proclaimed the “way forward” for content marketing—more engaging, more shareable, and more effective than large blocks of text. In fact, more video is uploaded to the Internet in a single month than network television has produced in three decades, and it has been predicted that as of this year, 74 percent of all Internet traffic would be video.

Armed with this knowledge, your CMO cries: “Make me a viral video!” Like it’s that easy—especially when your budget is decreasing amid the need for more content at all stages of the funnel, and your team is burned out as it is. That simple cry for video could be the straw that broke the team camel’s back.

In this environment—heck, in any environment—it’s so easy to produce poor quality video, something that can be even more damaging to your brand than no video at all.

Video marketing trends aside, video—sad to say—is essential for your content mix. Just make sure it’s good video.

Does the Medium Suit the Message?

“With the whole ‘pivot to video’ that’s going on in modern media, there’s a danger in losing a lot of great storytelling tools and methodologies,” says Steven McCann of Shearwater Films, one of Skyword’s own video contributors. “Some content just isn’t supposed to be a video, and relentlessly trying to shoehorn it into a 16 by 9 frame is going to make it suffer.

“I think it’s important that brands are smart with how they use their budgets when it comes to video, and they should have a valid compulsion in making content in video format rather than just doing it because it’s vaguely zeitgeisty at the moment.”

So, lesson number one: Don’t just make it a video because it’s cool. Think: Does this message suit the format? Or would it be better as an infographic, a slide show, or an e-book?

Video camera in foreground with blurred library and interview subject

Image attribution: Sam McGhee

Continues McCann: “I think part of the reason why video is so dominant in media consumption at the moment is because it requires a certain amount of focus and clarity in the process of being made. It can’t really be half-assed. The language of video is one with clearly defined rules and grounds, so content that is produced as video needs to conform to those rules.

“Having said all of that though, I think what I’d expect to see over the next few years is a move to a more disposable, less polished content form. It’s already begun to happen with Snapchat and Instagram stories, which have devolved the format to an even greater extent than what had already happened from the beginning of web video. Brands have obviously already started to get into social video as an advertising format, but I’d expect to see a greater move towards ‘real’ content. Over the last few years, there’s been a huge spike in interest in documentary and I’d expect to see advertising move in this direction as well as it is cheaper to produce and the format is more forgiving.”

Lesson number two: Play around with your formats to find something that fits your brand and your budget.

And while we’re at it, lesson number three: You have to put in work to make it work. You could’ve made the best video the world has ever seen, but if you don’t get it in front of your audience, no one will know about it. Include distribution as part of your initial project plan and content strategy.

“I’ve had clients who’ve put tens of thousands of dollars into a project and when we’ve handed it over to them they’ve said to us, ‘So what do we do now?’ The end goal of who the video is targeting, and how it will be watched by those people, should be firmly decided long before the camera is even turned on,” says McCann.

The Content Is the Key—Not the Production Value

That all sounds really, really expensive, right? Maybe you’d be better off just bashing something out on your iPhone and using it on Facebook . . . Which brings us to lesson number four: Preparation at your end makes the whole thing smoother—and more cost-efficient.

“It’s a common misconception that video is extremely expensive,” counteracts McCann. “The reality is that video is time-consuming to produce and edit, but a lot of that can be soaked up by the client in-house, which will drive down the total billable hours of the videographer/editor.

“The reality of content production is that the equipment required to shoot it and the talent of the videographer is secondary or even tertiary to the clarity of vision and the effectiveness of the message. The popularity of videos like ‘Charlie Bit My Finger’ or ‘Keyboard Cat’ is based on the content, not how well they’re produced.

Man behind video camera

Image attribution: Gabriel Matula

“There’s an unfortunate predilection for brands to throw money at a project and expect it to be a smashing success, but if the concept is poorly conceived from the jump, it’s doomed no matter how much money you’re willing to throw at it. If a client has a clear idea, a well-written script, and has their act together so that when we arrive to shoot everything goes swimmingly, we can produce the video in a half day and have it edited in about the same amount of time, which greatly reduces the cost to the client and makes for a fantastic little bit of content.”

Great! Your video content strategy just got a little easier. But here’s your final lesson—perhaps the most important one of all. Make sure video fits seamlessly into your content strategy. As Google says, “Before making corporate videos, create a content plan to ensure that your content both meets your brand’s goals and engages your intended audience.”

Video Is Not an Island

You need to look at video as part of the whole strategy. There is no single channel that gets treated as separate; each post, each video, each podcast, each photo shared all must tell part of the same brand story. This will also help you to create even more content on a small budget; create one large asset, then carve it up for multiple different formats. Think of that brilliant video you’re about to create:

  • Get your editor to make several smaller clips of around 30 to 60 seconds, perfect for sharing on social media.
  • Add subtitles to those smaller clips for those who’ll come across them during a commuter social scrolling session and might not be able to use sound.
  • When you post it on your website, add a transcript—it will help your SEO. Do the same for YouTube, too, as well as add some keywords.
  • Take that long transcript and create a series of articles, taking some key messages and expanding deeper—or write some smaller blog posts designed to promote the video itself.
  • Are there any facts and figures in the video content that could make a great graphic? Or maybe some pull quotes you could use with a still, for sharing on social?

It all sounds like an awful lot of work, right? But actually, this approach is designed to make less work for you while actually maximizing ROI on your video spend—it’s right on track with video marketing trends. As Dreamgrow reminds us: “The new era demands a focus on ignition, not just content, on trust, not just traffic, and on the elite people in your audience who are spreading and advocating your content. Video does it all.”

It’s also a handy mobile-first strategy: YouTube reports that more than half of their views come from mobile devices.

As for the buzzkill of branded content ruining a perfectly good funny video? More than three-quarters of consumers surveyed by Wyzowl said they would share a branded video with their friends if it was entertaining.

If done well, video is easily accessible, easy to digest, appeals to people’s visual natures, builds audience trust, and gives your brand some personality. It’s only as expensive as you let it be, so put in the prep work and really consider how it fits into your overall strategy and story. Just remember, you’re not creating a viral video; you’re creating multimedia to tell your brand story visually, in a way that fits your total content strategy. Right?

For more stories like this, subscribe to the Content Standard newsletter.

Subscribe to the Content Standard

Featured image attribution: Jakob Owens

Eight women say Charlie Rose sexually harassed them — with nudity, groping and lewd calls

Eight women have told The Washington Post that longtime television host Charlie Rose made unwanted sexual advances toward them, including lewd phone calls, walking around naked in their presence, or groping their breasts, buttocks or genital areas.

The women were employees or aspired to work for Rose at the “Charlie Rose” show from the late 1990s to as recently as 2011. They ranged in age from 21 to 37 at the time of the alleged encounters. Rose, 75, whose show airs on PBS and Bloomberg TV, also co-hosts “CBS This Morning” and is a contributing correspondent for “60 Minutes.”

There are striking commonalities in the accounts of the women, each of whom described their interactions with Rose in multiple interviews with The Post. For all of the women, reporters interviewed friends, colleagues or family members who said the women had confided in them about aspects of the incidents. Three of the eight spoke on the record.

Five of the women spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of Rose’s stature in the industry, his power over their careers or what they described as his volatile temper.

“In my 45 years in journalism, I have prided myself on being an advocate for the careers of the women with whom I have worked,” Rose said in a statement provided to The Post. “Nevertheless, in the past few days, claims have been made about my behavior toward some former female colleagues.

“It is essential that these women know I hear them and that I deeply apologize for my inappropriate behavior. I am greatly embarrassed. I have behaved insensitively at times, and I accept responsibility for that, though I do not believe that all of these allegations are accurate. I always felt that I was pursuing shared feelings, even though I now realize I was mistaken.

“I have learned a great deal as a result of these events, and I hope others will too. All of us, including me, are coming to a newer and deeper recognition of the pain caused by conduct in the past, and have come to a profound new respect for women and their lives.”

Within hours of the publication of this article, PBS and Bloomberg LP immediately suspended distribution of the “Charlie Rose” show. CBS announced that it was suspending Rose as it looked into the matter.

Most of the women said Rose alternated between fury and flattery in his interactions with them. Five described Rose putting his hand on their legs, sometimes their upper thigh, in what they perceived as a test to gauge their reactions. Two said that while they were working for Rose at his residences or were traveling with him on business, he emerged from the shower and walked naked in front of them. One said he groped her buttocks at a staff party.

Reah Bravo was an intern and then associate producer for Rose’s PBS show beginning in 2007. In interviews, she described unwanted sexual advances while working for Rose at his private waterfront estate in Bellport, N.Y., and while traveling with him in cars, in a hotel suite and on a private plane.


Two women who worked for Charlie Rose say he emerged from a shower and walked naked in front of them while they were working at his home or traveling with him for business. Above, Rose at home in Bellport, N.Y. (Ben Baker/Redux)

“It has taken 10 years and a fierce moment of cultural reckoning for me to understand these moments for what they were,” she told The Post. “He was a sexual predator, and I was his victim.”

Kyle Godfrey-Ryan, one of Rose’s assistants in the mid-2000s, recalled at least a dozen instances where Rose walked nude in front of her while she worked in one of his New York City homes. He also repeatedly called the then-21-year-old late at night or early in the morning to describe his fantasies of her swimming naked in the Bellport pool as he watched from his bedroom, she said.

“It feels branded into me, the details of it,” Godfrey-Ryan said.

She said she told Yvette Vega, Rose’s longtime executive producer, about the calls.

“I explained how he inappropriately spoke to me during those times,” Godfrey-Ryan said. “She would just shrug and just say, ‘That’s just Charlie being Charlie.’ ”

In a statement to The Post, Vega said she should have done more to protect the young women on the show.

“I should have stood up for them,” said Vega, 52, who has worked with Rose since the show was created in 1991. “I failed. It is crushing. I deeply regret not helping them.”

Godfrey-Ryan said that when Rose learned she had confided to a mutual friend about his conduct, he fired her.

Megan Creydt worked as a coordinator on the show from 2005 to 2006, overlapping with Godfrey-Ryan.

“It was quite early in working there that he put his hand on my mid-thigh,” said Creydt, who agreed to be interviewed on the record to support other women who were coming forward with what she deemed to be more serious claims concerning Rose.

She said that during the incident, Rose was driving his Mini Cooper in Manhattan while she was sitting in the passenger seat.

“I don’t think I said anything,” she said. “I tensed up. I didn’t move his hand off, but I pulled my legs to the other side of the car. I tried not to get in a car with him ever again. I think he was testing me out.”

Her then-boyfriend confirmed to The Post that she told him the story at the time.

In addition to the eight women who say they were harassed, The Post spoke to about two dozen former employees who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Six said they saw what they considered to be harassment, eight said they were uncomfortable with Rose’s treatment of female employees, and 10 said they did not see or hear anything concerning.

“He was always professional with me,” said Eleonore Marchand Mueller, a former assistant of Rose’s who worked for him from 2003 to 2005. “I never witnessed any unprofessional incidents.”

The show’s small, informal structure, with roughly 15 employees, and the centrality of Rose’s authority on a program he owns led to uncertainty over how to respond, said the women who felt victimized. “There wasn’t anybody to report this to if you felt uncomfortable,” one of them said.

The employees worked for Charlie Rose Inc., and not Bloomberg LP or PBS, which said they did not provide human resources support for the show.

The environment brimmed with the young and potentially vulnerable, hungry for scarce television jobs. “There are so few jobs,” said one of the women who said Rose groped her. “You know if you don’t behave a certain way, there’s someone else behind you.”

Rose traveled frequently, jetting off to interview world leaders across the globe and splitting time between two New York City residences and homes in Bellport — on Long Island — and North Carolina. Often at his side was a rotating cast of young assistants and producers.


The informal structure of Rose’s small show — with roughly 15 employees — and the centrality of the veteran journalist’s authority on a program he owns led to uncertainty over how to respond, said the woman who felt victimized. “There wasn’t anybody to report this to if you felt uncomfortable,” one of them said. Above, Rose at a gala in New York on Oct. 30, 2017. (Mike Coppola/Getty Images for the National Committee on American Foreign Policy)

The young women who were hired by the show were sometimes known as “Charlie’s Angels,” two former employees said. Rose frequently gave unsolicited shoulder rubs to several of them, behavior referred to among employees as “the crusty paw,” a former employee said.

Rumors about Rose’s behavior have circulated for years. One of the authors of this report, Outlook contributing writer Irin Carmon, first heard and attempted to report on the allegations involving two of the women while she was a journalist at Jezebel in 2010 but was unable to confirm them. In the past several weeks in the wake of accusations against Harvey Weinstein, Carmon and Post investigative reporter Amy Brittain jointly began contacting dozens of men and women who had worked on the “Charlie Rose” show or interviewed for jobs there.

A woman then in her 30s who was at the Bellport home in 2010 to discuss a job opportunity said Rose appeared before her in an untethered bathrobe, naked underneath. She said he subsequently attempted to put his hands down her pants. She said she pushed his hands away and wept throughout the encounter.

A woman who began as an intern in the late 1990s and was later hired full time described a “ritual” of young women at the show being summoned by Rose to his Manhattan apartment to work at a desk there. The woman described a day when Rose went into the bathroom, left the door open and turned on the shower.

She said he began to call her name, insistently. She ignored him, she said, and continued working. Suddenly, he came out of the bathroom and stood over her. She turned her head, briefly saw skin and Rose with a towel and jerked back around to avoid the sight. She said he said, “Didn’t you hear me calling you?”

She said she told someone in the office, and word got around. A few days later, she said, a male colleague approached her, laughing, “Oh, you got the shower trick.” The woman’s sister confirmed that her sibling had told her about the shower incident soon after it occurred.

Another woman said that during her internship in the early 2000s, Rose groped her breasts and stomach as she drove him from Bellport back to Manhattan. Her then-boyfriend, now husband, confirmed that she described the incident to him immediately after it occurred. When Rose invited her to work regularly and stay overnight at Bellport, her boyfriend told her to refuse the offer, and she did, both told The Post.

Rose’s eponymous show, with its trademark black background and round oak table, has been in production since 1991. What it lacks in mass viewership, the “Charlie Rose” show makes up for in prestige and high-profile bookings of the likes of former president Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey and Warren Buffett. Rose’s show is produced by Charlie Rose Inc., an independent television production company, and distributed by PBS. It is filmed at Bloomberg headquarters in Manhattan.

Rose’s stature has only grown in recent years.

CBS tapped him in 2011 to help revamp its ailing morning show, now called “CBS This Morning,” expanding his audience. He has also been a contributing correspondent for “60 Minutes” for nearly a decade. His 2013 interview of Syria’s president won Emmy and Peabody awards. (None of the women who made accusations against Rose to The Post worked for PBS or CBS.)

Representatives from PBS, CBS and Bloomberg said they have no records of sexual harassment complaints about Charlie Rose.

When Time magazine named Rose one of its 100 most influential people in 2014, billionaire and former New York City mayor Michael R. Bloomberg described him as “one of the most important and influential people in journalism.”


Rose joined “CBS This Morning” in 2011. Here, he’s seen with co-anchor Norah O’Donnell, left, and Gayle King on March 13, 2017. (Michele Crowe/CBS via Getty Images)

Rose, who was divorced in 1980, has long had a reputation as a ladies man. His “CBS This Morning” co-host, Norah O’Donnell, introduced him at a 2014 fundraiser dinner by joking, “We’re all here because with Charlie Rose, one woman is never enough.”

Rose graciously accepted honors that night by saying that he was lucky to have worked throughout his career with “women who were smarter, more thoughtful and more eloquent than I was.”

There was also less flattering coverage. The now-defunct Radar magazine in 2007 called him a “toxic bachelor” and repeated an unnamed woman’s claim that Rose had “palmed her buttock like a honeydew.” His then-attorney, David Boies, who has recently drawn criticism for his representation of Harvey Weinstein, demanded a retraction. The magazine refused.

The “Charlie Rose” show prides itself on its highbrow intellectual ambition, but his life is glamorous, full of black-tie galas and famous friends. He can be charming and generous, consulting favored employees for their opinions on what to ask heads of state or whisking them off to exotic locations for interviews. But his wrath was swift and often fiercely personal, according to interviews with multiple former employees.

“Everybody is terrified of him,” said one of the women who said that Rose groped her when she was an intern. “He creates this environment of constant fear. And then he’ll shine a spotlight on you and make you feel amazing.”

Multiple women said they had at first been reassured by the presence of Vega, Rose’s executive producer, who has worked with him for decades. Two women who spoke to The Post said they repeatedly reported Rose’s inappropriate sexual behavior to Vega.

Working for the “Charlie Rose” show was a longtime dream for Reah Bravo, who in 2007 was a 29-year-old graduate student studying international affairs at Columbia University. She struggled to make ends meet during her unpaid internship, accruing credit card debt and eating free cereal in the Bloomberg food court.

One day, several months into the internship, Rose offered her a side gig at his home in Bellport on Long Island.

“Here is the deal: I’ll pay you $2,500 for the week plus all expenses for food, movies etc.,” he wrote to her on Aug. 9, 2007. “You will be there from Monday August 13-Friday afternoon, August 17. Your primary responsibilities are to organize and catalogue all my books and tapes and files … It will help me a lot, be fun for you, and you will have a car all the time for whatever you need to do.”

Before she left for Bellport, Bravo said Vega told her that personal time with Rose was a key to becoming part of the team.


(Obtained by The Washington Post)

Bravo said she took the train to Bellport, where she said Rose met her at the Ronkonkoma station and took her to a bank to withdraw money to cover her expenses. She stayed at the Bellport home for about a week, sleeping in a bedroom in the main house. Rose was gone much of the time.

While she was there, Bravo said she received a message from a male producer. If Rose did anything “sketchy,” she said he told her, she should not hesitate to call the show’s car service to return home.

Late one night, Bravo said, Rose returned home after a night out. She said she tried to hurry out of the library in the guesthouse to return to her bedroom in the main house before Rose came in, but he intercepted her. She said he insisted that they have a glass of wine at the dining room table in the main house.

Then, he suggested they walk out to his dock and look at the moon, Bravo said. Once there, “he came up from behind me and he put his arms around me,” she said, remembering that she felt a mix of apprehension and confusion. “It reflected his poor judgment. How could a man of his stature and his power be doing something so inappropriate? . . . It seemed reckless.”

Caught off guard, she said she did not know how to respond and endured his embrace.

A day or two later, Bravo said, Rose drove her back to Manhattan. She said he began to tell her that he felt very alone in life, despite his wealth and success. He recalled a brush with death a year earlier during heart surgery in Paris and began to tear up, and she said she patted him on the shoulder to console him.

“I didn’t necessarily buy it,” she said. “I thought, ‘I’ll keep my distance and I feel sorry for him.’ But I didn’t think of him as a predator at that time.”

Bravo soon returned to Bellport for a second trip. She was working in the guesthouse and caught a glimpse of Rose rinsing off nude in an unenclosed outdoor shower. She said she quickly averted her eyes and moved away from the window.

Later, he asked if she had seen him showering, she said, and seemed disappointed when she said no. While at Bellport, Bravo said Rose repeatedly insisted that he needed to hear that she was comfortable at Bellport and how much she enjoyed it there.

She emailed him about her work ideas and also mentioned Bellport.

“Have I told you how much I absolutely enjoy it out there?” she wrote him on Sept 1, 2007. “The company, the conversation, the comfort…that said I’m happy to go out there for both the remainder of this weekend AND parts of the next in an effort to finish the books faster.”

That fall, she traveled with Rose to Aspen for a conference. On Oct. 1, after the trip, Bravo wrote an email to Vega, alluding to earlier issues with Rose:

“On a personal note, I know working for Charlie requires one to embrace his uniqueness and develop a professional relationship that can account for it. It’s taken a couple straight forward conversations between the two of us, but I feel I’m in a better place than previously. And that’s not to say that I was previously in a really bad place! It all might sound cryptic, but you seem to play somewhat of a motherly role for staff members and I just wanted you to know that I’m okay : )”

Vega responded the same day:

“I have some concerns for you especially in what you are trying to tell me in this email. Please know the following about me, I have worked with Charlie for 16 years, so there is nothing that I haven’t heard or possibly experienced – and that anything you ever reveal to me would be kept in confidence from anyone and from the top down, so that you can feel comfortable in that confidence…”


From left: Rose, “Charlie Rose” show executive producer Yvette Vega and Beth Hoppe, a PBS executive, speak at the 2013 Summer Television Critics Association tour in Beverly Hills, Calif. Two women who spoke to The Post said they repeatedly reported Rose’s inappropriate sexual behavior to Vega. In a statement, Vega says she regrets not doing more to protect the young women on the show. (Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images)

Toward the end of 2007, Bravo was given more responsibilities and Rose occasionally paid her for helping him prepare for interviews, speeches and conferences. Her new duties required more travel with Rose, and he frequently requested her company for working dinners, she said.

Rose would regularly hire drivers to take them around town. On more than one occasion, she said, he groped her in the back seat. One time, she said, he “grabbed me by my hair, holding a fist of it at the base of my scalp.” More than once, “he would grip my head tightly while talking to me. He held it so tightly that I couldn’t turn my neck in any direction. I was forced to look at him or to let him talk directly into my ear.”

In Indiana for a speaking engagement in March 2008, Rose summoned Bravo to his hotel suite to work on his speech. While she was working at a desk in the room, she said, he emerged naked from the shower and stood before a mirror where she could see him. She said she ignored him and kept working.

Later, flying on a small private plane alone with Rose, she said he requested that they watch a documentary about Algeria on a portable DVD player. Suddenly, she said, Rose got out of his seat and pressed his body onto hers.

“I felt at a loss. I mean, what am I going to do? We were how many feet up in the air?” she said, adding that they remained clothed. “I remember him being on top of me.”

Bravo said Rose’s advance was bizarre, brief and “animalistic.” Then he returned to his seat.

“I felt an immense sense of shame that I had greenlighted his actions because I didn’t fight back,” she said.

Bravo said she locked eyes with one of the two pilots as she disembarked. She said she interpreted his expression as one of “sympathy or maybe disgust.”

Later in 2008, she was hired as an associate producer but was already looking for another job. The same year, Bravo was offered a job that paid three times as much as the one at the “Charlie Rose” show. In response, Rose took her to the Spotted Pig, a well-known restaurant in Manhattan, and dangled a position as a producer in Washington. She could even live in a Georgetown residence where he sometimes stayed, she said he told her.

She said she declined.

“I was leaving because I was getting away,” she said. “I would never want to live someplace where he had keys.”

Since then, Bravo has worked as a corporate speechwriter and now lives in Europe with her husband and their young son.

In retrospect, Bravo said she feels shame and embarrassment about her warm correspondence with Rose.

“I read old emails, and I sound so sycophantic, it makes me sick,” she said. “But it was what he wanted, it made my work easier, and to an extent, it was the same game most staff members played. Male staffers did it, too. They just weren’t feeling as pathetic about it.”

Looking back, she is struck by how calculated Rose’s approach seemed.

“He most definitely said, on numerous occasions, ‘I’ve never forced you to do something you didn’t want to do,’ ” she said. “He would say this forcefully and wait for my confirmation after he said this. I remember once wondering if I was being recorded.”

Kyle Godfrey-Ryan was in her early 20s and had taken time off from her college studies in the mid-2000s when a friend offered to introduce her to Charlie Rose. She was unfamiliar with his show but was soon hired to be his assistant.

From the beginning, there was a blurring of the boundaries between Rose’s professional and private life, she said. On her first day on the job, Rose injured his foot. She tended to him as he recovered.

But soon, Godfrey-Ryan said, he began yelling at her, calling her stupid and incompetent and pathetic.

“He repeatedly attacked her in front of other people,” recalled a former producer who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “He once said that because she hadn’t gotten a college degree she would never amount to anything better than his secretary.”

After the bouts of rage, Godfrey-Ryan said, Rose would often be conciliatory.

“It would usually entail some version of him also touching me,” she said. “A hand on the upper thigh. He’d give a hug but touch the side of the breast.”

She said she ignored his actions. Then he began calling her as late as midnight and as early as 6 a.m.

“It would be wanting to know details of my sex life,” she said. “ ‘Who’s next to you? What do you do? Is he touching you?’ And I was like, ‘Okay, Charlie, I’ll see you tomorrow.’ I just acted like it wasn’t happening.”

She said other calls involved a “very specific, repetitive fantasy” of her disrobing at the Bellport home and swimming “back and forth in the pool in the moonlight” as he watched from his bedroom.

Her boyfriend at the time, now her husband, told The Post that he was often present for these calls but said he did not know what was being discussed. The content of the calls, however, was openly discussed in the office and even joked about, according to Godfrey-Ryan and the producer who worked there at the time.

Godfrey-Ryan also said Rose would repeatedly walk in front of her naked at one of his New York City residences. Her husband confirmed that she complained to him about it at the time.

She said she ignored the nudity. “He was getting more and more frustrated that I wouldn’t engage,” she said.

Godfrey-Ryan said she reported the touching and the calls to Vega, but nothing happened.

“She just made me feel like I was being a dramatic little girl,” Godfrey-Ryan said. She stopped reporting the behavior.

Godfrey-Ryan said she eventually confided to a mutual friend outside the show about Rose, and the friend told Rose.

She said Rose fired her.

“He took me out to lunch and told me how embarrassed he was, how he didn’t treat me like that,” she said. “It was really about how I got it wrong, and, obviously, I couldn’t work there anymore.”

She later went back to school at Columbia. She has since launched her own business, Tune.Studio, which uses infrasonic wave technology to treat stress and improve moods, leading to “peace and happiness.”

“It makes me a little upset to see him on television,” she said. “Everything I experienced with journalism there made me not want to stay.”

Another woman gave multiple interviews to The Post about her experience with Rose but requested anonymity out of concern for her privacy.

In 2009, she was in her mid-30s, looking to break into broadcast journalism after studying politics and earning her graduate degree in Europe. While working at a cultural foundation in New York City, her boss offered to put her in touch with Charlie Rose.

Rose responded with interest.

The meetings that followed, she said, were unconventional: a dinner at a restaurant, late at night with Rose’s prominent friends, where he drank a lot of wine. A sudden weekend invitation to lunch continued with her tagging along as Rose shopped for furniture. When he drove her home, she said she listened in alarm as he berated a producer over the phone.

Then he turned to the job applicant. “He put his hand on my knee and said, ‘Oh, I’m sorry about that,’ ” she said. “He said, ‘I hope you don’t mind, I’m from the South, we’re touchers.’ ”

No job offer came, but on June 8, 2010, Rose got back in touch, according to an email the woman provided. She was still unemployed and the job Rose described sounded ideal.

“He talked about this position, which he referred to as being his intellectual partner, that I would be the executive producer for global content,” she recalled.

By now, she had been told the unorthodox interview process was standard because of Rose’s packed schedule and desire to do the hiring for all positions by himself.

As part of the process, she visited Bloomberg’s Manhattan office and also discussed the job with Rose at his apartment.

“My producers come here all the time to work,” she said he told her.

She said Rose mentioned a salary of $120,000, described the job as involving frequent international travel and asked for references. Rose soon suggested they see how they traveled together by having her visit his Bellport house, she said.

On June 18, Rose sent her an email inviting her to the house that evening.

“As I mentioned, I’m going to my place on long island tonight to write…and then coming back tomorrow for a dinner. This is to invite to visit…

“You have your own wing of the house, or even a guesthouse, It’s on the water, plus Olympic pool, tennis court, plenty of movies and books and sailing and I run on the beach at sunrise and sunset…This has no influence on our dialogue about work projects.”

He added near the end of the email: “Bring someone if you like. I’m on deadline, so i will be writing all the time and will not be entertaining except breaks for exercise and meals. Let me know…before noon.”


(Obtained by The Washington Post)

Eager to land the job, the woman agreed to travel with Rose to Bellport, which is about 60 miles from Manhattan.

She gave the following account:

That evening, after stopping for dinner and getting lost, they arrived at the house after midnight. She did not see anyone else there. Rose proposed she choose a DVD of his show that they could watch together. After the show, Rose gave her a tour of the property. The guesthouse, she noticed, was packed with clutter, uninhabitable.

At the pool, Rose dangled his legs in the water and then said that he needed to change because his pant legs were wet. He returned wearing a white bathrobe, which was open; he wore nothing underneath.

“I thought, I’m doomed,” she said. “I was completely panicked. In retrospect, I thought of a million things I could have done.”

She said she was not intoxicated — Rose had drunk his wine and then hers at the restaurant — but said he appeared to be. It was nearly 2 a.m. and she was exhausted, she said. She also said she felt alone and powerless. It was the middle of the night, they were on his secluded property, and she did not know how to drive.

“I started talking in this feeble and compulsive way,” she said. “I started talking about power, how the abuse of power can be. He completely lost it. ‘What are you talking about? That’s certainly not the case.’ ”

She said he then tried to put a hand down her pants.

“By the time he touched me the first time, he was already very angry,” she said. “I was scared, and I was also kind of frozen.”

After that, her memory is “hazy,” she said. They ended up in his bedroom.

“I really, honestly, I’ve tried so hard, especially recently, since I’ve been thinking about this, to try to remember what happened between sitting by the pool and being in his bed,” she said. “I have no recollection of how we went from here to there. I do remember I was crying the entire time.”

He reached down her pants again, she said, and she pushed his hands away. As she wept, she said, Rose asked her, “Baby, oh baby, why are you crying?”

The encounter ended when he appeared to be asleep and she felt she could leave the room, she said.

The next day, she said there was little mention of what had happened. She described the previous night to him “as a bit of a disaster” and he said, “What do you mean?”

A few days later, she followed up about the job.

In retrospect, she said, “Remaining silent allowed me to continue denying what had occurred. It was in that state of denial that I wrote to him asking about the job.”

He replied with his regrets.

“The whole thing was really the most humiliating and most degrading experience I’ve ever had,” the woman says now. A friend she confided in at the time described her as having been “distraught” in recounting what happened.

“To have been used in the way she was left her feeling really confused and really distressed,” the friend told The Post. The friend encouraged her to write about her experience, and she chose to do so as a short story.

In one of the drafts that she shared with The Post, a tall, drawling television host named “Johnny Pose” brings a young woman to his country home on Long Island to discuss a job opportunity.

The woman said she changed some key details about what happened by the pool. And in the story, unlike in real life, she said, she viewed the host with contempt rather than fear.

She said she submitted the story to several magazine editors in 2010 and 2011. Paris Review editor Lorin Stein declined to publish the story but wrote to her in March 2011, “It has the ring of truth (alas).”

The woman titled the story, “The Hunt.”

The double entendre, she said, was intentional.

“I was hunting for a job,” she told The Post, “and he was hunting for me.”

Julie Tate and Alice Crites contributed to this report.

AT&T’s Run-Ins With the Government

Advertisement

Supported by

ATT, one of the world’s largest telecommunications companies, figures prominently in the annals of antitrust law.

Since the late 19th century, under various names and configurations, the entity once known as Ma Bell has often been targeted by regulators trying to rein in its size and keep it from amassing monopoly power.

Now, ATT is facing off against the Justice Department again, this time over its proposed $85.4 billion takeover of Time Warner. And although the details are different, the current situation is a reminder of the complicated balancing act the government must strike in regulating ever-changing companies.

“ATT has been a dominant company from the very beginning and has sought to maintain its dominance through varying government interactions,” said Gerald Brock, a former Federal Communications Commission staff member who is a professor of public policy at George Washington University. “That’s been the sense of ATT through the ages — that they seem to have a lot of power, but people also want to be able to communicate in a way that ATT allows them to do.”

Image
An 1880 engraving of New York’s central telephone exchange office.CreditCulver

1876

With Bell’s Invention, a Company Is Born

Alexander Graham Bell receives two patents for his telephone. A year later, the Bell Telephone Company, the precursor to ATT, issues stock to seven shareholders. In 1881, the company acquires Western Electric Company, a supplier of telephone equipment.

Image
CreditThe New York Times

1913

Bowing to Trustbusters

ATT averts an antitrust suit by agreeing to get out of the telegraph business and offers long-distance service to independent telephone companies.

The context: ATT dominated the growing industry of electronic communication early in the 20th century, not just through telephones (it squeezed independent telephone companies by limiting their access to Bell’s superior long-distance service) but also through telegraphs, with its controlling stake in Western Union.

The result: The telegraph business was already giving way to telephones, so the sale of the Western Union stake was not a big loss. Opening up ATT’s long-distance lines to independent telephone companies satisfied regulators who were seeking greater efficiencies, but it also made the companies more dependent on the Bell System service.

1956

Concessions in an Antitrust Case

ATT settles an antitrust lawsuit by agreeing to stay out of the burgeoning computer industry. It also agrees to generally license its patents — opening the door for transistors, invented by Bell Labs in 1947, to spread far and wide.

The context: The lawsuit, filed in 1949 by the administration of President Harry S. Truman, sought to break apart Western Electric, the Bell System’s manufacturing arm, from the parent company. Western Electric was overcharging ATT, the government argued, and so was forcing telephone customers to pay higher rates. It also charged that technological innovations developed within the Bell Labs monopoly were being kept under wraps.

The result: The Bell System was still a powerful monopoly, virtually the lone source for telephone service in the United States, but it would be denied the chance to develop the next big shift in telecommunications: computers.

Image
CreditThe New York Times

1982

The Demise of ‘Ma Bell’

ATT ends a seven-year-old antitrust case by agreeing to disassemble itself into several independent pieces, essentially breaking apart the monopoly it had enjoyed since early in the century.

The context: Technology developed outside the Bell System had been gnawing at ATT’s monopoly for years. Microwave towers, for example, could transmit signals, circumventing the Bell System wires. A 1968 regulatory decision allowed independent companies to connect to ATT’s network. ATT, meanwhile, was eager to shed the prohibition on computer work it agreed to in the 1956 antitrust settlement.

The result: Some pieces of the Bell System would be swallowed by other corporate entities, while others, such as Verizon, would be huge successes in the new landscape. ATT, a shadow of its former self, was eventually acquired by a former “Baby Bell,” SBC Communications (formerly Southwestern Bell). The new combination become ATT Inc.

Image
Randall Stephenson, left, ATT’s chief executive, at a hearing before Congress in 2011 over ATT’s bid for T-Mobile.CreditAlex Wong/Getty Images

2011

Expansion Plans Rebuffed

ATT, facing strong opposition from federal regulators, abandons its plan to acquire the mobile phone service T-Mobile USA for $39 billion.

The context: ATT was hungry for more radio spectrum, which carries wireless calls and data, as smartphones became must-have devices. Adding T-Mobile would have helped solve that problem, and would have made ATT the nation’s largest cellphone service provider. Spearheading the merger: Randall L. Stephenson, in his first big strategic step since becoming ATT’s chairman and chief executive in 2007.

But the Obama administration said antitrust oversight had gotten weaker in recent years and strongly objected to the deal, saying it would result in higher prices and less innovation. The Justice Department was joined in opposing the merger by several state attorneys general and the Federal Communications Commission, which published a lengthy report laying out its concerns.

The result: The failure of the deal was a major setback for ATT’s growth plans and left the company scrambling for a new solution to its network constraints.

2014

Next Up: Satellite TV

ATT wins regulatory approval to acquire DirecTV, the satellite TV provider, for $48.5 billion.

The context: A few years after failing to acquire a cellphone rival, ATT was seeking to tilt the balance of power with media companies as the market for broadband internet and video shifted.Fourteen months later, after executives at both companies made their pitch to Congress, federal regulators approved the acquisition.

The result: The combination of ATT, one of the country’s largest telephone and internet providers, with DirecTV, the country’s largest satellite provider, was the biggest media merger of the year and created the country’s largest television distributor, with about 26 million subscribers, surpassing Comcast.

Image
Time Warner offices in New York City. Today’s Time Warner is the byproduct of many rounds of spinoffs and acquisitions.CreditSam Hodgson for The New York Times

2017

The Justice Dept. Fights a Merger

The Justice Department opposes an $85.4 billion deal between ATT and Time Warner, saying the merger would create a communications and media behemoth unrivaled in its ability to reach most American homes.

The context: In October 2016, ATT moved to expand again, making an offer for Time Warner, owner of HBO and CNN. The offer was considered to create a new colossus capable of both producing content and distributing it to millions with wireless phones, broadband subscriptions and satellite TV connections.

The deal immediately drew skeptics, including, on the presidential campaign trail, Donald J. Trump, who said the day it was announced: “It’s too much concentration of power in the hands of too few.”

At center of the dispute is the notion of a “vertical” merger, in that it involves two companies with different functions, a contrast to the scuttled “horizontal” merger of ATT and T-Mobile.

The result: In an interview early this month, weeks before the suit was filed, Mr. Stephenson said a significant vertical merger had not been challenged in 40 years.

He added that the company had been preparing to litigate its case since “Day 1.”

Trending

Charles Manson being taken to jail months after the brutal killings of seven people in Los Angeles in 1969.
Bettmann

Mr. Manson became one of the most notorious killers of the 20th century after his followers brutally murdered seven people in 1969, including the actress Sharon Tate.

Charlie Rose last year. On Monday, CBS suspended him and PBS announced that it would no longer distribute his interview show.
Richard Shotwell/Invision, via Associated Press
The Ingalls family in 1894. Left to right: Caroline, Carrie, Laura, Charles, Grace and Mary.

A new biography of Laura Ingalls Wilder “refreshes and revitalizes” our understanding of westward expansion, pioneer life and the literature that mythologized it.

Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, during a committee hearing in May.
Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

Lindsay Menz told CNN that in 2010, when Mr. Franken was a senator, he grabbed her rear end as they took a photo. Mr. Franken says he does not remember it.

Markus Schreiber/Associated Press

Since the Harvey Weinstein scandal, a number of high-profile men have resigned, been fired or experienced other fallout after claims of sexual misconduct.

Advertisement