Steakholders
There are stakeholders (yawn...) and then there are STEAKholders. Steakholders are red meat groups. Irate shareholders. Peeved employees. Fired up environmental groups. These are the people holding your steak. Find out who gets burned and who comes out perfect. Right here.
Feb 20, 2009
Nov 25, 2008
Islamic charity leaders guilty of aiding Hamas - USATODAY.com#uslPageReturn#uslPageReturn
NGOs charity Holy Land Foundation Hamas
Holy Land Foundation - Formerly largest Muslim Charity in U.S. Convicted of Funneling Money to Hamas
Quoted from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-11-24-charity_N.htm?csp=34#uslPageReturn:
Islamic charity leaders guilty of aiding Hamas
By Donna Leinwand, USA TODAY Five leaders of the Holy Land Foundation, once the nation's largest Muslim charity, were convicted Monday in Dallas of supporting the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.
Prosecutors said the foundation, based in Richardson, Texas, sent more than $12 million to Hamas-run schools, hospitals and social welfare programs in Palestinian territories.
A jury convicted the group and its officers of all 108 charges, including money laundering, conspiracy, supporting a terrorist group and tax fraud, in one of the largest terrorism financing trials since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"Today's verdicts are important milestones in America's efforts against financiers of terrorism," said Patrick Rowan, assistant attorney general for national security. "This prosecution demonstrates our resolve to ensure that humanitarian relief efforts are not used as a mechanism to disguise and enable support for terrorist groups."
Linda Moreno, an attorney for Ghassan Elashi, who served as Holy Land's chairman, said Elashi and the other officers will appeal.
"We continue to believe in our client's innocence," Moreno said. "We accept the jury's verdict, but we think it was mistaken."
Elashi will appeal the use of testimony from an anonymous Israeli security services agent, Moreno said.
"This prosecution was a win-at-all-costs contest for them," Moreno said.
Lawyers for the Holy Land officers argued during the trial that the group simply gave charity to Palestinians and others in need.
"No one here is engaging in acts of terrorism," Theresa Duncan, attorney for the charity's chief executive, Shukri Abu Baker, said at the trial.
A sentencing date has not been set. Money laundering carries a maximum of 20 years in prison for each conviction. Supporting a terrorist organization has up to a 15-year sentence on each count.
The U.S. in 1995 designated Hamas a terrorist organization and said its schools and other social service programs support terrorist ideology and serve as recruiting grounds for suicide bombers. It is illegal for Americans and U.S. groups to support designated terrorist organizations.
President Bush linked Holy Land to the "war on terrorism" when the U.S. Treasury froze the charity's assets and federal agents raided its offices in December 2001.
A grand jury first indicted Holy Land's officers in July 2004. That case ended in a mistrial in October 2007.
Contributing: The Associated Press
Nov 21, 2008
Angelina Jolie's carefully orchestrated image - Print Version - International Herald Tribune
Angelina Jolie media coverage People Magazine
Negotiating CoverageQuoted from http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=18023525:
Angelina Jolie's carefully orchestrated image - Print Version - International Herald Tribune
Angelina Jolie's carefully orchestrated image By Brooks Barnes
Friday, November 21, 2008LOS ANGELES: When Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt negotiated with People and other celebrity magazines this summer for photos of their newborn twins and an interview, the stars were seeking more than the estimated $14 million they received from the deal. They also wanted a hefty slice of journalistic input a promise that the winning magazine's coverage would be positive, not merely in that instance but into the future.
According to the deal offered by Jolie, the winning magazine was obliged to offer coverage that would not reflect negatively on her or her family, according to two people with knowledge of the bidding who were granted anonymity because the talks were confidential. The deal also asked for an "editorial plan" providing a road map of the layout, these people say.
The winner was People. The resulting package in its Aug. 18 issue the magazine's best-selling in seven years was a publicity coup for Jolie, the Oscar winner and former Hollywood eccentric who wore a necklace ornamented with dried blood and talked about her fondness for knives before transforming herself into a philanthropist, United Nations good-will ambassador and devoted mother of six.
In the People interview, there were questions about her and Pitt's charity work and no use of the word "Brangelina," the tabloid amalgamation of their names, which irks the couple.
Through a spokeswoman, People magazine, which is owned by Time Inc., released a statement denying that any conditions were placed on coverage. "These claims are categorically false. Like any news organization, People does purchase photos, but the magazine does not determine editorial content based on the demands of outside parties," the statement said.
While all celebrities seek to manipulate their public images to one degree or another, Jolie accomplishes it with a determination, a self-reliance and a degree of success that is particularly notable. The actress does not employ a publicist or an agent. The keys to her public image belong to her alone, although she does rely on her longtime manager, Geyer Kosinski, as a conduit.
Jennifer Lopez, who sold pictures of her twins to People for an estimated $6 million in February, has a team of eight to help her navigate such situations. Jolie, 33, has her cellphone, a lawyer and Kosinski (and, of course, the counsel of her partner, Pitt). Getty Images handled the photography and some negotiations.
"She's scary smart," said Bonnie Fuller, the former editor of Us Weekly and Star magazines. "But smart only takes you so far. She also has an amazing knack, perhaps more than any other star, for knowing how to shape a public image."
Jolie did not respond to interview requests and neither did Kosinski. Her lawyer, Robert Offer, declined to comment. But through interviews with nearly two dozen people who have worked directly with her over the years, a picture emerges of how she skillfully works the press.
Jolie expertly walks a line between known entity and complete mystery, cultivates relationships with friendly reporters and even sets up her own photo shoots for the paparazzi.
Most skillfully, she dictates terms to celebrity magazines involving their coverage of her and her family, editors say, creating an awkward situation for publications that try to abide by strict journalistic standards.
Jolie showed her skill at handling the news media in other negotiations. People magazine bid successfully for photos and an exclusive interview after she gave birth to her first child in 2006. Those pictures sold for an estimated $4.1 million, a sum that she and Pitt said they donated to charity.
In a separate 2006 negotiation with People, Jolie invited magazine editors through her philanthropic adviser, Trevor Neilson to bid on exclusive photos of her and her adopted Cambodian son, Maddox. But she made coverage of her charity work part of the deal.
"While Angelina and Brad understand the interest in their family, they also expect that the publications who purchase these photos will use them in a way that also draws attention to the needs of the Cambodian people," Neilson wrote in a December 2006 memo to editors.
He went on to promise that Jolie would provide "exclusive quotes" to the publication that purchased the photos. "Publications are invited to comment on their editorial plans when submitting their bids," Neilson wrote.
Time Inc. won the photos, paying an estimated $750,000. In the Jan. 8 issue of People came an article headlined "Angelina Jolie: Mission to Cambodia." As in other instances, the company paid the money to the photography company, Getty Images, which took its fee and split the rest in payments to companies operated on behalf of Jolie and Pitt. Those companies in turn funneled the money to the Jolie-Pitt Foundation.
Neilson, the president of the Global Philanthropy Group and a former executive at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, said, "She is used to sell magazines and newspapers, so part of why we wrote that memo is that we wanted to use the interest in her personal life to influence people to pay attention to important issues. If Angie can use the interest and redirect it, she wants to do that."
The persona that Jolie projects on screen tends to be intimidating and physical. She is not the girl next door. She won a supporting actress Oscar in 2000 for "Girl, Interrupted," in which she played a mental patient.
But more recently, she has emphasized her philanthropic work, and her growing family. Jolie, with Pitt, now has a clan of six. There are three adopted children Maddox, Pax and Zahara and three biological children: Shiloh and the twins, Knox and Vivienne.
But she cut a very different, wilder figure in Hollywood during her marriage to the actor Billy Bob Thornton. After their divorce in 2003, Us magazine asked Jolie if she would agree to an interview and be photographed. According to two people involved, she declined but then offered the magazine another photo opportunity. Jolie informed it what time and place she would be publicly playing with Maddox, essentially creating a paparazzi shot.
The resulting photo, the origin of which was not made public to Us readers, presented Jolie in a new light a young mother unsuccessfully trying to have a private moment with her son.
Shifting the focus is one of Jolie's best maneuvers, magazine editors and publicity executives say. When she became romantically involved with Pitt, for instance, she faced a public relations crisis being portrayed in the tabloid press as a predator who stole Pitt from his wife, Jennifer Aniston.
This time, it was Jolie's charity work that helped turn the story. Long interested in international humanitarian work, Jolie appeared in Pakistan, where she visited camps housing Afghan refugees, and even met with President Pervez Musharraf. Jolie and Pitt made a subsequent trip to Kashmir to bring attention to earthquake victims.
"Presto, they come out looking like serious people who have transformed a silly press obsession into a sincere attempt to help the needy," said Michael Levine, a celebrity publicist and author.
That is cynical nonsense, counters Neilson.
"People don't realize the complexity of what Angie is doing," he said. "A lot of her charity work is done quietly and not in front of the media."
According to U.S. government filings, the Jolie-Pitt Foundation, the entity through which Neilson says the couple distributes photo money, has given grants of about $2 million since its creation in 2006. Neilson said that filings run more than a year behind and that the foundation has additional commitments of about $5.6 million that that are being paid as the organizations receiving the funds structure their programs.
Among the grants are $2 million for an AIDS clinic in Ethiopia and $2.6 million to Make It Right, an organization devoted to rebuilding New Orleans, Neilson said. Smaller grants include $500,000 to groups focused on helping Iraqi schoolchildren.
The New York Times recently ran a feature article about Jolie; there were no restrictions on access.
Jolie's attempts to lasso the media have occasionally backfired. In 2006, when she sought the privacy of Namibia to give birth to Shiloh, the government refused to grant visas to journalists unless they had written permission from the couple. Magazines complained harshly.
More recently, she insisted that journalists at the premiere of "A Mighty Heart," a movie about the murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, sign an agreement limiting their questions and the use of her answers. In part, the document stated: "The interview may only be used to promote the picture. In no event may interviewer or media outlet be entitled to run all or any portion of the interview in connection with any other story."
And, "the interview will not be used in a manner that is disparaging, demeaning or derogatory to Ms. Jolie."
Jolie blamed an overzealous lawyer for the demand at the time, saying he was "trying to protect me."
Still, such blunders are rare, and Jolie's Q score, a measurement of a star's likability, has continued to increase. Around the time she won her Oscar, 13 percent of people surveyed viewed her positively, according to Marketing Evaluations Inc. The average rating for female stars is 18 percent.
Today, about 24 percent of respondents view Jolie positively.
Nov 19, 2008
Mark Cuban vs. SEC
Nov 18, 2008
Nov 12, 2008
Bill
Communications professional specializing in PR as marketing, crisis communications & NGO relations.
Recent Comments