Connect with us


Tavis Smiley on PBS Suspension: ‘They Didn’t Give Me Due Process’

Monday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” suspended PBS host Tavis Smiley lashed out at..

Monday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” suspended PBS host Tavis Smiley lashed out at his network for his indefinite suspension and claimed that PBS did not give him “due process.”

Smiley was suspended last week after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced.

CARLSON: That’s the state of play. Tavis Smiley joins us tonight. Tavis, thanks for coming on.

KEVIN SMILEY, PBS HOST: My pleasure, thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: So, what specifically did PBS accuse you of doing when they — show off the air?

SMILEY: It’s hard to know. The clause in my contract that they originally suggested to me they were looking to sort of inside baseball, it’s clause 5.1, which is the moral clause, we all have moral clauses in our contracts. The clause that they invoked when they pulled the plug on the show was clause 9.1 which is the call that allows them simply to shy not distribute my show anymore.

In others words, they told me that they suspended me under clause 9.1, but they told the press basically that I’d violated clause 5.1. So, PBS to this very moment has not told me specifically what I’m being suspended for.

CARLSON: So, they issued a statement accusing you of some nonspecific sex crime in effect. You don’t know what that is, you don’t know who has accused of this, and you don’t know the substance of it?

SMILEY: I do not. PBS launched an investigation without telling me about it. I found out about it in the streets when former colleagues of mine started calling me that they were started receiving phone calls asking strange questions from some investigator asking questions like did Tavis ever make you uncomfortable? Are there other persons we should talk to? They started letting me know about these calls, that’s how I learned of this. I contacted, of course, my attorneys.

My attorneys reached out to PBS and these investigators, and for weeks my attorneys offered for me to sit down at any time, place or point to answer whatever questions they might have. They rejected that invitation for weeks, only under the threat of lawsuit, our suing them did they agree to finally sit with me for three hours and to talk to me and in that conversation, I was never told what the accusations were, I mean, what the accusations were, who the accusers were.

I was never allowed to provide any data or evidence to debunk anything that perhaps I could have debunked about knowing what we’re talking about anyway. But they wouldn’t allow me to present any evidence, and they frankly didn’t give me a due process, and on top of that, they have come into this moment, not talk to anyone on my current staff. Not my COO, who was in charge of HR. It’s just mind-boggling to me that they have sort of kind of had to play this game of pick and choose of who they actually they want to talk to and all these persons I have talked to are former employees. Some of them who are terminated.

I’ve been at this 30 years. When you were in business that long to hire people and some people get fired, but they won’t talk to, for whatever reason, my current staff or the person in charge of HR to just ask very simply, did Tavis ever instruct you to make any workplace decision based upon his relationship status? The answer is no, but they weren’t even asked those questions.

CARLSON: So, do you know where this original complaint came from?

SMILEY: I do not.

CARLSON: So, you don’t know how this started, and you don’t know who’s making the accusations.

SMILEY: No, I don’t know how it started.

CARLSON: You don’t know what the accusations are.


CARLSON: So what did you talk about for three hours with their lawyers?

SMILEY: A bunch of vague questions. Sort of what if, what is this or might you have ever done this, sir? It was basically a bunch of what if scenarios. No specifics, no places, no times, no real data for three hours. It was the most frustrating thing ever. I mean, I’m a conversationalist, but it’s tough to have a three-hour conversation without knowing what you’re really talking about.

CARLSON: Which of the process have looked like do you think?

SMILEY: I certainly understand. It’s a rigged question. I’m glad you asked, Tucker. I certainly understand in this moment why any network would be concerned about these kinds of allegations and they ought to be looked into. My complaint is the way that PBS has gone about this, not even telling me that a complaint has been lost against me, never telling me they were starting an investigation, refusing for weeks to even speak to me.

Again, not talking to my current staff. There are any number of things that could have been done here, and they just bungled this. And as I said, they made a huge mistake. They have engaged in a sloppy investigation, and something needs to be done to fix this.

CARLSON: So you have said that you had romantic relationships with people who worked for you.

SMILEY: Over 30 years of being in this business, yes.

CARLSON: Over 30 years.


CARLSON: Is that against, first of all, is that a wise idea? And second, is it against the rules?

SMILEY: At worst it is misjudgment. Over the years I have learned. I mean, at this again, 30 years or so, there are things that I might have done 30 years ago that I might not do now. Not because it’s illegal or immoral or unethical but just because it might represent that judgment. As you know, I’ve written two books in my career talking about mistakes I’ve made and lessons I’ve learned along the way.

There are many things in my life that I’ve done in the past that I might not do today but it does not rise to the level of this kind of public shame, this kind of public humiliation, this kind of wrongful termination in this kind of personal destruction.

CARLSON: What you think this is about? I mean, why did PBS do this do you think?

SMILEY: Whenever something like this hits the media, there was always more to the story than meets the eye. And I don’t want to say much more than that because my attorneys are hard at work. There’s a lot more behind this. I did say earlier today that it is strange when you finally get this three hour meeting, and within an hour and a half after that meeting ends they pull the plug on the show. Clearly when we went into that three hour meeting, PBS had already made up its mind without having talked to me early on in the investigation process.

Without having talked to my current staff. They had made up their mind and so about 90 minutes after this meeting ended, we got the letter that temporarily or indefinitely I should say is the exact language and definitely suspending my program.


SMILEY: And 12 minutes after that, this exclusive story broke in variety. So, I ask how does an exclusive story break 12 minutes after we were informed that the plug was being pulled. And in that story, there are quotes from an unnamed sources presumably inside from PBS, persons close to the investigation, is the phrase they used. They have enough time to research my background, so there is background material about me in the story.

There are leaks they placed in the story, I assume an editor looked at this before it went online. But all of that was done inside of 12 minutes. Now, you tell me whether or not there is an agenda here.

CARLSON: Yes. Do you think the rule ought to be that you are not allowed to date your subordinates, should that be allowed?

SMILEY: I certainly understand that there are persons who believe that there is no such thing as a consensual relationship in the workplace. I hear that, I respect that point of view, but there are other opinions on this. In my employee handbook, we do not encourage interoffice relationships, but we don’t forbid it either, because I don’t know how things are going to turn out in your life and you start hanging out with our company.

I don’t know who you are going to meet. And let’s face it, nobody is working 40 hour weeks anymore, we are working, 40, 50, 70, 80 hour weeks. What else are you going to meet people in this business? Our business itself is full of people, producers and talk show host who met on the job.


SMILEY: So, clearly there are millions of Americans who met their spouse at work. So, I just don’t think I have the right to tell people who to date. The problem here is that we are starting to criminalize legitimate relationships between consenting adults and that’s a real problem for me. And if this can’t be resolved some other way and if this does in fact end up in court, millions of taxpayer dollars are going to be spent by PBS to defend itself and I don’t think the taxpayers want their money spent that way.

CARLSON: I’ve never agreed with you on very much, Tavis, but I have said I agree with you on a lot of what you just said and I appreciate you coming on tonight.

SMILEY: My pleasure, thank you, Tucker.

Original Article

The post Tavis Smiley on PBS Suspension: ‘They Didn’t Give Me Due Process’ appeared first on News Wire Now.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Nuclear annihilation just one miscalculation away, UN chief warns

The world is one misstep from devastating nuclear war and in peril not seen since the Cold War, the UN Secretary General has warned.

“We have been extraordinarily lucky so far,” Antonio Guterres said.

Amid rising global tensions, “humanity is just one misunderstanding, one miscalculation away from nuclear annihilation”, he added.

His remarks came at the opening of a conference for countries signed up to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The 1968 deal was introduced after the Cuban missile crisis, an event often portrayed as the closest the world ever came to nuclear war. The treaty was designed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to more countries, and to pursue the ultimate goal of complete nuclear disarmament.

Almost every nation on Earth is signed up to the NPT, including the five biggest nuclear powers. But among the handful of states never to sign are four known or suspected to have nuclear weapons: India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan.

Secretary General Guterres said the “luck” the world had enjoyed so far in avoiding a nuclear catastrophe may not last – and urged the world to renew a push towards eliminating all such weapons.

“Luck is not a strategy. Nor is it a shield from geopolitical tensions boiling over into nuclear conflict,” he said.

And he warned that those international tensions were “reaching new highs” – pointing specifically to the invasion of Ukraine, tensions on the Korean peninsula and in the Middle East as examples.

Russia was widely accused of escalating tensions when days after his invasion of Ukraine in February, President Vladimir Putin put Russia’s substantial nuclear forces on high alert.

He also threatened anyone standing in Russia’s way with consequences “you have never seen in your history”. Russia’s nuclear strategy includes the use of nuclear weapons if the state’s existence is under threat.

On Monday, Mr Putin wrote to the same non-proliferation conference Mr Guterres opened, declaring that “there can be no winners in a nuclear war and it should never be unleashed”.

But Russia still found itself criticised at the NPT conference.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken condemned what he called Russia’s sabre-rattling – and pointed out that Ukraine had handed over its Soviet-era nuclear weapons in 1994, after receiving assurances of its future security from Russia and others.

“What message does this send to any country around the world that may think that it needs to have nuclear weapons – to protect, to defend, to deter aggression against its sovereignty and independence?” he asked. “The worst possible message”.

Today, some 13,000 nuclear weapons are thought to remain in service in the arsenals of the nine nuclear-armed states – far lower than the estimated 60,000 stockpiled during the peak of the mid-1980s.


Read from:

Continue Reading


Australia election: Why is Australia’s parliament so white?

Australia is one of the most multicultural nations in the world, but it’s a different story in the country’s politics, where 96% of federal lawmakers are white.

With this year’s election, political parties did have a window to slightly improve this. But they chose not to in most cases, critics say.

Tu Le grew up the child of Vietnamese refugees in Fowler, a south-west Sydney electorate far from the city’s beaches, and one of the poorest urban areas in the country.

The 30-year-old works as a community lawyer for refugees and migrants newly arrived to the area.

Last year, she was pre-selected by the Labor Party to run in the nation’s most multicultural seat. But then party bosses side-lined her for a white woman.

It would take Kristina Kenneally four hours on public transport – ferry, train, bus, and another bus – to get to Fowler from her home in Sydney’s Northern Beaches, where she lived on an island.

Furious locals questioned what ties she had to the area, but as one of Labor’s most prominent politicians, she was granted the traditionally Labor-voting seat.

Ms Le only learned she’d been replaced on the night newspapers went to print with the story.

“I was conveniently left off the invitation to the party meeting the next day,” she told the BBC.

Despite backlash – including a Facebook group where locals campaigned to stop Ms Kenneally’s appointment – Labor pushed through the deal.

“If this scenario had played out in Britain or the United States, it would not be acceptable,” says Dr Tim Soutphomassane, director of the Sydney Policy Lab and Australia’s former Race Discrimination Commissioner.

“But in Australia, there is a sense that you can still maintain the status quo with very limited social and political consequences.”

An insiders’ game

At least one in five Australians have a non-European background and speak a language at home other than English, according to the last census in 2016.

Some 49% of the population was born or has a parent who was born overseas. In the past 20 years, migrants from Australia’s Asian neighbours have eclipsed those from the UK.

But the parliament looks almost as white as it did in the days of the “White Australia” policy – when from 1901 to the 1970s, the nation banned non-white immigrants.

“We simply do not see our multicultural character represented in anything remotely close to proportionate form in our political institutions,” says Dr Soutphomassane.

Compared to other Western multicultural democracies, Australia also lags far behind.

The numbers below include Indigenous Australians, who did not gain suffrage until the 1960s, and only saw their first lower house MP elected in 2010. Non-white candidates often acknowledge that any progress was first made by Aboriginal Australians.

Two decades ago, Australia and the UK had comparably low representation. But UK political parties – responding to campaigns from diverse members – pledged to act on the problem.

“The British Conservative Party is currently light years ahead of either of the major Australian political parties when it comes to race and representation,” says Dr Soutphomassane.

So why hasn’t Australia changed?

Observers say Australia’s political system is more closed-door than other democracies. Nearly all candidates chosen by the major parties tend to be members who’ve risen through the ranks. Often they’ve worked as staffers to existing MPs.

Ms Le said she’d have no way into the political class if she hadn’t been sponsored by Fowler’s retiring MP – a white, older male.

Labor has taken small structural steps recently – passing commitments in a state caucus last year, and selecting two Chinese-Australian candidates for winnable seats in Sydney.

But it was “one step forward and two steps back”, says party member and activist Osmond Chiu, when just weeks after the backlash to Ms Le’s case, Labor “parachuted in” another white candidate to a multicultural heartland.

Andrew Charlton, a former adviser to ex-PM Kevin Rudd, lived in a harbour mansion in Sydney’s east where he ran a consultancy.

His selection scuppered the anticipated races of at least three diverse candidates from the area which has large Indian and Chinese diasporas.

Party seniors argued that Ms Kenneally and Mr Charlton – as popular and respected party figures – would be able to promote their electorates’ concerns better than newcomers.

Labor leader Anthony Albanese also hailed Ms Kenneally as a “great Australian success story” as a migrant from the US herself.

But Mr Chiu says: “A lot of the frustration that people expressed wasn’t about these specific individuals.

“It was about the fact that these were two of the most multicultural seats in Australia and these opportunities – which come by so rarely – to select culturally diverse candidates were squandered.”

He adds this has long-term effects because the average MP stays in office for about 10 years.

The frustration on this issue has centred on Labor – because the centre-left party calls itself the “party of multiculturalism”.

But the Liberal-National government doesn’t even have diversity as a platform issue.

One of its MPs up for re-election recently appeared to confuse her Labor rival for Tu Le, sparking accusations that she’d mixed up the two Asian-Australian women – something she later denied. But as one opponent said: “How is this still happening in 2022?”

Some experts like Dr Soutphommasane have concluded that Australia’s complacency on areas like representation stems from how the nation embraced multiculturalism as official policy after its White Australia days.

The government of the 1970s, somewhat embarrassed by the past policy, passed racial discrimination laws and “a seat at the table” was granted to migrants and Indigenous Australians.

But critics say this has led to an Australia where multiculturalism is celebrated but racial inequality is not interrogated.

“Multiculturalism is almost apolitical in how it’s viewed in Australia,” Dr Soutphommasane says, in contrast to the “fight” for rights that other Western countries have seen from minority groups.

What is the impact?

A lack of representation in parliament can also lead to failures in policy.

During Sydney’s Covid outbreak in August 2021, Fowler and Parramatta electorates – where most of the city’s multicultural communities reside – were subject to harsher lockdowns as a result of a higher number of cases.

How will things change?

Liberal MP Dave Sharma, the only lawmaker of Indian heritage, has said all parties – including his own – should better recruit people with different backgrounds. He called it a “pretty laissez-faire attitude” currently.

Mr Albanese has urged Ms Le to “hang in there”, insisting she has a future.

But more people like Ms Le are choosing to speak out.

“I think I surprised a lot of people by not staying quiet,” she told the BBC.

“People acted like it was the end of my political career that I didn’t toe the party line. But… none of that means anything to me if it means I’m sacrificing my own values.”

She and other second-generation Australians – raised in a country which prides itself on “a fair go” – are agitating for the rights and access their migrant parents may not have felt entitled to.

“Many of those from diverse backgrounds were saying they felt like they didn’t have a voice – and that my case was a clear demonstration of their suppression, and their wider participation in our political system.”

She and others have noted the “growing distrust” in the major parties. Polls are predicting record voter support for independent candidates.

“This issue…. matters for everyone in Australian society that cares about democracy,” says Mr Soutphommasane.

“If democratic institutions are not representative, their legitimacy will suffer.

Read from:

Continue Reading


US military leader warns Chinese security deal with Solomon Islands sounds ‘too good to be true’

A senior US military general has warned during a visit to Australia that China’s offer to deepen security ties with Solomon Islands will come with strings attached, suggesting the Pacific island country may come to regret the planned deal.

“My parents told me if a deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is,” the commandant of the United States Marine Corps, general David Berger, said on Wednesday.

Berger was cautious when asked about longstanding US concerns relating to a Chinese company’s lease over the port of Darwin, stressing it was a sovereign decision for Australia as part of its yet-to-be-completed national security review.

Ahead of a trip to Darwin, the site of increasing rotations of US Marines, Berger said: “If it’s not of concern to Australia, then it’s not of concern to me.”

Berger’s visit comes amid a flurry of diplomatic activity by the US and Australia attempting to head off a proposed security agreement between China and Solomon Islands, which could allow regular visits by the People’s Liberation Army Navy.

A leaked draft from last month raised the possibility China could “make ship visits to, carry out logistical replenishment in, and have stopover and transition in Solomon Islands”, while Chinese forces could also be used “to protect the safety of Chinese personnel and major projects in Solomon Islands”.

The prime minister of Solomon Islands, Manasseh Sogavare, has sought to allay concerns, saying his country has no intention of allowing a Chinese naval base. But Sogavare has also said it is “very insulting to be branded as unfit to manage our sovereign affairs”.

Speaking in Canberra on Wednesday, Berger said the US needed to show humility in its outreach to Pacific nations, but also needed to be open about the potential long-term consequences.

Berger reflected on the fight for control of Guadalcanal in Solomon Islands during the second world war, when the US and allies sought to prevent Japanese forces from gaining a foothold in the strategically important location.

“A lot of things change in warfare. Not geography. Where … Solomon Islands are matters. It did then and it does now,” Berger said at the Australian Strategic Policy


He said the proposed agreement was “just another example” of China seeking to broaden and expand its influence. He raised concerns about “the way that [it] happens and the consequences for the nations” involved.

Sogavare has argued Solomon Islands pursues a “friends to all and enemies to none” foreign policy, but Berger implied countries making agreements with Beijing might regret it down the track.

“We should illuminate, we should draw out into the open what this means long term,” Berger said.

“This is, in other words, an extension of ‘hey we’re here with a cheque, we’re here with money, we’d like to improve your port or your airfield or your bus station’. And that just sounds so great, until a year later or six months later.”

The US plans to reopen its embassy in Solomon Islands, a move the nominee for US ambassador to Australia, Caroline Kennedy, has said “can’t come soon enough”.

Berger acknowledged there were limits to US insights in Pacific island countries, so the US needed to rely on allies such as Australia.

“We’re not going to have always the best view, the clearest picture,” he said.

“We have to understand the neighbourhood and we’re never going to understand it as well as Australia.”

Earlier, the Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, denied that the US had conveyed any concerns that Australia had dropped the ball in the region.

Morrison said the Australian government was continuing to raise concerns with Solomon Islands without acting in a “heavy-handed” way.

Australia’s minister for the Pacific, Zed Seselja, met with Sogavare in Honiara on Wednesday and “asked Solomon Islands respectfully to consider not signing the agreement” with China.

Seselja suggested Solomon Islands “consult the Pacific family in the spirit of regional openness and transparency”. Australia would work with Solomon Islands “swiftly, transparently and with full respect for its sovereignty”.

“We welcome recent statements from prime minister Sogavare that Australia remains Solomon Islands’ security partner of choice, and his commitment that Solomon Islands will never be used for military bases or other military institutions of foreign powers,” Seselja said.

Sogavare has previously said Solomon Islands welcomed “any country that is willing to support us in our security space”.

But Matthew Wale, the leader of the opposition, has argued the deal “would make the Solomons a geopolitical playing field” and “further threaten the nation’s fragile unity”.


Read from:

Continue Reading