| ||||
|
Arts & Entertainment Books Comics Health & Body Media Mothers Who Think People Politics2000 Technology - Free Software Travel & Food ![]() Columnists
Current Click here to read the latest stories from the wires. - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - Also Today For a full list of today's Salon News stories, go to the
News home page. - - - - - - - - - - - - Search Salon - - - - - - - - - - - - Recently in Salon News
Unlikely jailbirds
Screw the kids!
Three cheers for the brave new activism
What I saw at the revolution
Camp IMF - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
Live from death row | page 1, 2
"I have reason to believe that you misrepresented the nature of your intentions," North Carolina's attorney general, Michael F. Easley, wrote in a letter of protest to Benetton. "Your stated goals in this so-called 'public information campaign' appear inconsistent with the terms under which you were granted access and with the statements made by your agents to obtain it." "I read about the ads in the local paper," Nebraska's Win Barber recalled. "The materials we received said nothing about advertising. They said that Benetton was funding them, but not that [Benetton] would use the materials." Some journalists, including Slate's Tim Noah, objected to the way the Benetton team used Shulman's Newsweek affiliation to give the corporate project the look of journalism. Rice's original letter included Shulman's résumé listing his Newsweek experience, which is unobjectionable in itself. But later, once the team was in the Missouri prison, Shulman signed a consent form that showed Newsweek as the sponsoring organization/agency. Newsweek isn't happy. "Our name was misrepresented," Newsweek spokesman Roy Brunett said. Shulman, citing Missouri's lawsuit, refused to comment. Rice insists prison guards filled out the consent forms and that Shulman merely signed them. He also points out that the state had already given the team permission to visit when the consent forms were signed, so the Newsweek credential isn't what got them into the prison. "It has nothing to do with access," he insisted. "The decision [to grant the team access] had been made prior to that point," conceded Holste. "But the misrepresentation on the form is only a piece of it. We don't believe that the information we got from professor Rice in trying to gain access to the inmates in the maximum security was the appropriate level of information." If the state had known Benetton's true intentions, he says, "then the Department of Corrections would have denied that request for access." But at least one state official, Larry Todd, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, rejects the claim that Rice and company had acted in a deceitful way. "They were right up front with us: They told us they were doing an advertising catalog or calendar," he said. "Best I recall, they were very candid." Texas declined Benetton's request for a death-row visit. Still, it's clear that Benetton's plans for the death-row photos changed at some point. Rice claims that around a month after the team wrapped up its prison shoots, Toscani's assistant at Fabrica -- the creative think tank with which Toscani and Benetton are affiliated -- sent notice that Toscani wanted to commit most of his budget to posters, billboards and magazine ads for Benetton -- what Rice and Benetton people refer to as an "expanded campaign," not a completely new one. "We did 26 inmates, but he only wanted to feature seven of them [in the ads]," Rice said. "They wanted additional permission from these seven inmates." It was at that point that Benetton got itself into more hot water. Because it was clearly using the prisoners in advertising, however unorthodox, it had to get permission and at least offer to compensate them. To cover the legal bases, Rice contacted the lawyers of the seven convicts in early December and had them sign waivers to allow use of the image. He also offered each prisoner a $1,000 fee -- but urged the men to turn it down, because of some states' laws preventing prisoners from profiting from their crimes. "Our recommendation was 'You should turn this down. It's not a good idea.'" Only Missouri's Jerome Mallet, sentenced to death for the murder of a state Highway Patrol officer, and Nebraska's Jeremy Sheets, on death row for the racially motivated rape and killing of a female teenager in 1992, took the money -- but the state intervened and donated it to a victims' compensation fund. Missouri has not been able to track down what became of the payment to Mallet. In the end, the legal question may come down to whether Benetton was obliged to let prison officials know its plans had changed and that it was using the photos in its "expanded campaign." Rice sees no legal need for the heads-up. "The only issue is: Should Benetton or us have contacted the prison to get permission to use an image already in the legal possession of Toscani? I still don't think on First Amendment grounds you have to do that." Rice's lawyer, Les Weatherhead of Spokane, Wash., says that the team wasn't legally bound to tell the Missouri authorities about the change in plans. "The state of Missouri never asked Benetton to commit to any binding issues on the future use of the photographs. If there were any binding issues, I'd be concerned." In other words, the team had no legal reason to tell the state about any future developments, and so they didn't. "Professor Rice's comments don't really address our allegations of misrepresentation to the state," said Holste in response. "The state has a very serious obligation and responsibility to protect the integrity and security of the facilities such as the maximum security prison," he added. Missouri vows to press on with its suit, but so far other states haven't joined it. Nebraska has officially backed off its threats of a civil suit. "Upon review, the state has decided that it would not be in the best interest of Nebraska," said attorney general spokeswoman Jessica Flanagan. North Carolina and Kentucky haven't advanced their grievances, nor has Oregon, which, despite the New York Post's claim, said it never had considered a suit. Was it worth the trouble for Benetton to provoke controversy on a delicate issue during an election year? "They've lost millions," Rice said, but company spokesman Mark Major was quick to correct him. "Spent millions, maybe," he said. Whatever the case, Benetton isn't the first group in America to unload a lot of money on a flagging political campaign.
- - - - - - - - - - - - Table Talk Sound off - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Search Salon | |||
Arts & Entertainment | Books | Comics | Life | News | People
Politics | Sex | Tech & Business | Audio
The Free Software Project | The Movie Page
Letters | Columnists | Salon Plus
Copyright © 2000 Salon.com All rights reserved.