Roger Parloff of Fortune has this excellent summary of where the controversy stands. Before the new revelations, it had been taken for granted in many quarters that the large oil company was guilty as charged in the environmental suit — not least because a widely hailed independent documentary film advanced that position, as did “a sympathetic 12,600-word article for Vanity Fair in 2007.” But here’s what a U.S. Magistrate Judge said in a ruling last week: “While this court is unfamiliar with the practices of the Ecuadorian judicial system, the court must believe that the concept of fraud is universal, and that what has blatantly occurred in this matter would in fact be considered fraud by any court. If such conduct does not amount to fraud in a particular country, then that country has larger problems than an oil spill.” It’s sad to think we might have to start reading those 12,600-word Vanity Fair articles with a more skeptical eye.
4 Comments
” It’s sad to think we might have to start reading those 12,600-word Vanity Fair articles with a more skeptical eye. ”
Start???
A typical lawyer industry fraud, amplified to a grand scale of theft.
Having been in a Vanity Unfair article, I know for a fact they don’t even pretend to have any journalistic integrity. They’re all about pumping up the hype to sell issues. (Not unlike Fox news… )
So an article in a tabloid rag is considered a legal document on which to convict someone?
Interesting…
And that should have been an “independent” documentary, including quotes around “independent”, as such things rarely are.
That article and “documentary” were probably as unbiassed, well researched, and independent as the Ecuadorian court system is immune to fraud.