The Media's Fascination with Robbers and Killers, CACSA, August 17, 1996

THE MEDIA'S LOVE AFFAIR WITH KILLERS SPANS THE AMERICAN LANDSCAPE

Throughout the short history of the United States, the media has played a very important role in romanticizing the image of Robin Hood and adapting it to people that are far from that medieval take-from-the-rich-and-give-the-poor hero. This fascination explains why the concept of an underdog or a David and Goliath are so widely quoted in the media.

This love affair between the media and robbers and killers started with Jesse and Frank James, the notorious bank and train robbers who mesmerized a nation and romanticized a job. Attempting to turn Jesse James into a 19th century Robin Hood was the goal of every newspaperman that followed their acts. Even though Jesse James was nothing but a bank robber and a cold killer. Accusing the media of unfair coverage at that time is an understatement. Branding Jesse James as a 19th century Robin Hood was a public necessity even though he was a public nuisance. The late Western settlers protected the brothers and granted them a safe haven when the authorities, including the US army, was trying to hunt them down. Jesse James eventually got killed with a bullet in his back because of reward money.

The same could be true of Al Capone who ordered the killing of more than 500 people. He walked the streets unpretentious and arrogant because of the fascination the media held for him. It took the US government a technicality to indict Al Capone when in fact everyone knew that he killed and robbed and racketeered.

Add to the above Dillinger and Bonny and Clyde and you notice a pattern that is truly unique to America and the American way of life.

WHAT MAKES THESE PEOPLE THE OBJECT OF FASCINATION ?

A complex question whose roots go back to the early settlers and mass expulsions by the British Government. The United States offered challenges that did not exist in Europe. The land was vast and the harshness of the terrain commanded a legitimacy to defense that eventually translated to premeditated violence and a doctrine that pitted gun fighters against each other with the law watching the outcome, even encouraging the use of violence to solve problems. The culture was embedded in resolving conflicts with the use of guns. Even today, gun ownership in the United States is a sacred, constitutionally protected right that many citizens take very seriously. The use of violence to resolve problems created a society that cherished the fastest gun, the ugliest fight, and the most daring escapes or robberies (i.e. the Great Train Robbery, Sundance Kidd, etc...).The media, as it was maturing in this land of violence, regarded the underdog as a folk hero. What that hero did and how he did it was of no consequences. Whether he killed or robbed mattered very little because everyone at heart wished he was a modern day Robin Hood.

TODAY'S MEDIA

No less different than yesterday's media, journalists and writers today are fascinated by those who accomplish regardless of what they accomplish or how they accomplish. Ross Perot muscled his way onto General Motors and walked away with a $750 million payoff in the mid eighties. The media saw this as an underdog getting what he worked for to get. Whether it is right or wrong really mattered very little to those people. Very few times in history did the media punish a bad guy. The most recent cases dealt with Michael Miliken, the junk bond king. Why did the media turn against him? Simply because he affected the lives of so many. His case was not of David and Goliath, his was of Goliath against the people. Most of the other thieves that have been revered throughout history were considered David and the government of big business Goliath. The same is true of Charles Keating, the Savings and Loan kingpin. He was among many to cause the downfall of a whole industry that affected so many including many in the media business.

But is the fascination still there? Yes and the proof is an almost three page layout in the Sunday edition of the Washington Post of July 21, 1996 in the Style section. The subject matter is Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi Ambassador to the United States. David Ottaway of the Washington Post is a very respected journalist with credentials to fill a library wall. But in this case, David Ottaway was no different than the many journalists who have written in the past century and early this century about Jesse James, Al Capone, John Dillinger, and Bonny and Clyde. A pen is revering a thief and a murderer just because that thief and murderer, in addition to his crimes, has been involved in daring adventures and has seen what others wish they had. David Ottaway's pen turned Bandar bin Sultan into a swashbuckling modern day Erol Flynn when in fact Bandar is a politician with no morals and no values. His pen described him as wise, magnetic, audacious and rich. Where was that wisdom during the Iran-contra affair ? Is his magnetism helping Saudi Arabia today or hurting it ? The audacity deals more with taking than giving. His wealth is as illegitimate as his creation. Did Mr. Ottaway bring up the scandals and the corruption festering his existence ? Did Mr. Ottaway bring up of how Bandar got rich ? Did Mr. Ottaway ask Bandar about Democracy and Human Rights violations in Saudi Arabia ? The media is still fascinated with those who muscles themselves in by looting, robbing, and killing. This article is a definite proof.

EROL FLYNN, YOU AIN'T !!

To David Ottaway's credit, he does bring up the issue of corruption which the Committee's lifetime work will be based upon. In short he says : "Still, with the royal family under increasing scrutiny from angry Saudi Islamic fundamentalists--including allegations of corruption, land grabs, and handsome commissions --Bandar's high-flying lifestyle has not entirely escaped notice His name has even surfaced in two cases brought before U.S. Courts by employees of American firms working in the kingdom who turned whistle-blowers. They alleged that shell companies were being used to launder commissions back to members of the Saudi royal family. Bandar himself was not a defendant in either case. It is all wearying to him now. All of it: the innuendo, the diplomatic duties, the whole Washington thing".

Setting up so many shell companies must be wearing Bandar out.

He claims that the Aspen ranch where he spends most of his time now has been given to him as a gift by the King and his father. This reminds C.A.C.S.A. of his famous quote used in Veil :

"...If I point to my driver, he becomes a suspect now...".