Connect with us

News

Snow Squall Leads to 50-Car Pileup on Pennsylvania Highway

Published

on

Snow Squall Leads to 50-Car Pileup on Pennsylvania Highway

A blinding snow squall led to a fiery pileup on a Pennsylvania interstate on Monday morning that concerned at the least 50 automobiles, together with a number of tractor-trailers, the authorities mentioned.

The chain response occurred round 10:36 a.m. on Interstate 81 in Schuylkill County about 50 miles northeast of Harrisburg, Pa., the place an early spring burst of wintry climate overwhelmed drivers within the northbound lanes.

About 20 folks have been taken to hospitals, John Blickley, a spokesman for the Schuylkill County Workplace of Emergency Administration, mentioned on Monday. He didn’t know of any fatalities and didn’t have details about the severity of the accidents.

“The highway situations when the squall got here by way of contributed to the accident,” Mr. Blickley mentioned.

The Pennsylvania Division of Transportation referred questions concerning the crash to the Pennsylvania State Police, which wrote on Twitter on Monday afternoon that fifty to 60 automobiles have been concerned within the pileup and {that a} fireplace continued to burn on the scene. It didn’t instantly present particulars, together with details about fatalities.

Advertisement

The pileup snarled site visitors for a number of miles on the freeway, making it tough for emergency responders to achieve the expansive wreckage. The threat of additional snow squalls additional sophisticated these efforts, prompting the authorities to close down the freeway.

One driver who was concerned within the pileup captured the chain reaction on video because it occurred, and the diminished visibility that motorists encountered. The video, which drew widespread consideration on social media, confirmed a convoy of tractor-trailers plowing into one different and skidding on the freeway.

Within the video, the motive force of a sedan narrowly averted being hit by one other automotive after hitting a freeway signal on the shoulder. One particular person might be heard yelling “go, go, go” as the person recording the footage urged different drivers to “be careful.”

Some drivers who had gotten out of their vehicles ran towards the woods as extra vehicles and vehicles slammed into the idled automobiles on the freeway.

The person who captured the chaotic sequence expressed his disbelief as an S.U.V. plowed into his Dodge Charger.

Advertisement

“My automotive is gone,” he yelled.

It was the second time in simply over a month {that a} snow squall was blamed for a serious pileup on Interstate 81 in Schuylkill County. On Feb. 19, 5 folks have been injured in a pileup that concerned about 50 automobiles close to McAdoo, Pa., about 25 miles northeast of the place the pileup on Monday occurred, in accordance with native media retailers. None of these accidents have been life-threatening.

News

CNN liable for defamation over story on Afghanistan 'black market' rescues

Published

on

CNN liable for defamation over story on Afghanistan 'black market' rescues

Security contractor Zachary Young alleges CNN defamed him in a November 2021 report, shown above, about Afghans’ fears of exorbitant charges from people offering to get them out of the country after the Taliban took control of Afghanistan. CNN says it will defend the report in a trial set to start in a Florida court Monday.

CNN via Internet Archive/Screenshot by NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

CNN via Internet Archive/Screenshot by NPR

A Florida jury has found that CNN defamed a security consultant in presenting a story that suggested he was charging “exorbitant prices” to evacuate people desperate to get out of Afghanistan after the U.S. withdrawal in August 2021.

Jurors found the network should pay $5 million to U.S. Navy veteran Zachary Young for lost finances and suffering, and said he was eligible for more in punitive damages. The proceedings turned immediately to expert testimony as both sides presented cases over what punitive damages would be appropriate.

Young sat impassively as the jury’s verdict was read aloud in court.

Advertisement

The November 2021 story focused on concerns from Afghans that they faced extraordinary costs in a “black market” to secure safe passage for relatives and friends, especially those who had worked with U.S. agencies and organizations and therefore were fearful of the takeover by the Taliban.

Young was the only security contractor named in the piece, however, and a caption warned he offered “no guarantee of safety or success.”

He was not directly accused of operating in a black market in the television or written versions of the story, but the words did appear in the caption in the TV version of the story.

On the witness stand during the trial, CNN editors defended use of the term “black market,” saying it meant operating in unregulated circumstances, such as the chaos of Kabul at that time; Young’s lawyers noted that dictionaries consistently ascribe illegality to the term.

The jury found CNN liable for defamation per se, meaning it had harmed Young by the very words it chose, and for defamation by implication, that is, it had harmed his reputation by the implications that a reasonable reader or viewer might take from the story.

Advertisement

Young’s lead attorney, Devin Freedman, had argued that CNN willfully damaged Young, costing him millions of dollars and causing irreparable personal harm, and that the network should be punished for it. Toward the very end of his closing arguments, Freedman told the jury they had the rare opportunity to hold the press accountable.

“Media executives around the country are sitting by the phones to see what you do,” Freedman told jurors. “CNN’s executives are waiting in their boardrooms in Georgia to see what you decide. Make the phones ring in Georgia. Send a message.”

After the initial verdict, Judge William S. Henry instructed jurors that they could only find punitive damages against CNN for its actions in the case at hand, not over any other story or issue.

Even so, over the course of the lawsuit, lawyers for Zachary Young acquired internal correspondence showing several editors within CNN held reservations about the solidity of the reporting behind the story.

For example, Fuzz Hogan, a senior director of standards for CNN, acknowledged in testimony under oath that he had approved a “three-quarters true” story. Another editor, Tom Lumley, had said in an internal message that the piece was “80 percent emotion.” On the stand, Lumley said that it still wasn’t his favorite story, but on the grounds of the craft of story-telling involved.

Advertisement

During the trial, CNN’s lawyers had contended the story’s reporting holds up as fair and true under scrutiny. CNN correspondent Alexander Marquardt had presented viewers with a LinkedIn message from Young saying it would cost $75,000 to evacuate a vehicle with five or six passengers from Kabul to Pakistan. Young said he worked with corporate sponsors, including Bloomberg and Audible, rather than individuals.

On the stand, Young acknowledged that he took a 65% profit margin from the fees he charged, and took inquiries from individuals. He also curtly and coarsely brushed off people inquiring about help who could not afford his fees.

Other groups involving U.S. veterans and non-governmental organizations sought to get Afghans out without such profits, as a former major general testifying on Young’s behalf acknowledged. The retired major general, James V. Young Jr. (not related to Zach Young), said he charged donors for the cost.

CNN’s legal team, led by David Axelrod (the lawyer is not related to the Obama White House official and CNN analyst of the same name) had told jurors they should rely on their own “common sense.”

Axelrod had been able to press Young to concede that some of his claims to potential clients were not borne out by facts; Young had not in fact evacuated people from Afghanistan by air. Nor was he in constant contact with journalists, as claimed.

Advertisement

In his closing argument, Freedman presented Young as a swashbuckling former CIA operative to explain his curtness in messages to desperate people trying to help people.

On the witness stand, however, Young emerged as emotionally vulnerable himself, weeping during testimony. He recounted that, after the story ran, he became despondent, depressed, alienated from intimacy with his wife, cut off from friends and family members. HIs attorney cited “deep and lasting wounds” from the piece.

The piece was presented initially on CNN’s The Lead With Jake Tapper, and a fuller written version subsequently posted on CNN’s website. A few months later, shortly after Young’s legal team threatened legal actions, a substitute anchor apologized to Young on the air for use of the term “black market” in the story, and said it did not apply to him.

Freedman, Young’s attorney, called the apology insufficient.

“This is what makes this case historic: punitive damages,” Freedman told jurors. “A media company has to face an American jury with the power to punish. That is not a frequent event. Do you believe that CNN should be punished? Do you believe they should send a message to other media companies to avoid this misconduct?”

Advertisement

This story will be updated after the jury decides on what, if any, punitive damages to award Young.

Continue Reading

News

Los Angeles Fire Chief Faces Calls for Resignation

Published

on

Los Angeles Fire Chief Faces Calls for Resignation

Three years ago, when Kristin Crowley became the first female chief in the history of the Los Angeles Fire Department, she was lauded as a force for stability.

“There is no one better equipped to lead the L.A.F.D. at this moment than Kristin,” the mayor at the time, Eric Garcetti, said of the 22-year veteran of the department. “She’s ready to make history.”

Now, as Los Angeles reels under an extended onslaught of wind-driven wildfire, its fire chief is being buffeted by challenges in and outside her ranks, tension with City Hall and questions about her department’s preparedness. The fires, which are still unfolding on the city’s west side and in the community of Altadena outside the city, have so far leveled nearly 40,000 acres and claimed at least 27 lives.

Last week, complaints about funding for her department boiled over into a public dispute between Mayor Karen Bass and Chief Crowley. This week, veteran fire managers charged that she and her staff should have positioned more engines in advance in high-risk areas like Pacific Palisades, where the fires began on Jan. 7.

At a news conference, she struggled to explain why an outgoing shift of about 1,000 firefighters was not ordered to remain at work last Tuesday as a precaution amid extreme red-flag conditions. “We surged where we could surge,” she said.

Advertisement

A Jan. 13 letter signed by unnamed “retired and active L.A.F.D. chief officers” accused her of a host of management failures and called for her to step down. “A large number of chief officers do not believe you are up to the task,” the five-page letter read in part.

In an email on Thursday, a fire department spokesperson said that the chief was “focused on mitigating the fires” and unable to respond to the letter. The chief has repeatedly emphasized the progress her crews are making.

“Our firefighters are doing an incredible job,” she said in a news briefing on Thursday, as a continuing air and ground assault brought hot spots in Pacific Palisades closer to containment. “As their chief, I’m extremely proud of the work that our people did and continue to do.”

With thousands of evacuees clamoring to return to the remains of their homes and more red-flag wind conditions in the forecast, many civic leaders in Los Angeles have reserved judgment.

“This was a huge natural disaster not any single fire chief could have prevented, whether they had unlimited resources and money,” said Corinne Tapia Babcock, a member of the Los Angeles Fire Commission, which oversees the department and its chief. “You cannot attack a single person for a situation that is this catastrophic.”

Advertisement

Zev Yaroslavsky, a former member of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and City Council, said that “an accounting should and will take place when the smoke clears.”

“But these issues can’t be resolved while the city’s on fire,” he added.

Other civic leaders predicted that, sooner or later, the chief would be held to account.

“She’ll be gone in six months,” said Fernando Guerra, who directs the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University.

Even before the fire, the chief faced strong political challenges, Dr. Guerra said. Her appointment in early 2022 by the prior mayor, Mr. Garcetti, was seen as an attempt to steady the department after years of complaints of harassment and discrimination raised by female L.A.F.D. firefighters.

Advertisement

But it challenged the male-dominated culture of the department, Dr. Guerra noted, as did the election later that year of Ms. Bass as the new mayor. Like other top managers in Los Angeles city government, fire chiefs are mayoral appointees and can be replaced by a new administration. Ms. Bass kept her on.

Even with more than two decades with the department, Chief Crowley was still new in her post — just beginning to develop a base of support — when the Palisades burst into flames last week.

As the fire turned into a catastrophe, critics of Mayor Bass, including Patrick Soon-Shiong, the owner of The Los Angeles Times, and Elon Musk, the owner of X, the social media platform, charged that the fire department had been underfunded. A December memo from Chief Crowley surfaced, in which she warned the fire commission that a $7.9 million cut in firefighter overtime and the elimination of dozens of civilian positions had “severely limited” the department’s ability to respond to large-scale emergencies.

Ms. Bass had approved a budget last June for the fire department’s current fiscal year that was $23 million less than the prior year’s. But a new contract with the firefighters’ union led to raises, and the final fire budget was actually $53 million more than last year’s.

The claims about underfunding sparked a dayslong dispute with the mayor and her allies. By the end of last week, Chief Crowley had doubled down, telling a local Fox News affiliate that she felt the city government had failed the fire department.

Advertisement

Within hours, she and Ms. Bass — facing criticism herself for having been out of the country when the Palisades fire started — disappeared into the mayor’s office for so long that they missed an evening news briefing. Outside the closed doors, the mayor’s staff repeatedly denied an erroneous report from a British news outlet that the chief had been fired.

By Saturday morning, the mayor and the chief were projecting a unified front, though the tension was apparent. “The chief and I are in lock step,” Ms. Bass said. “And if there are differences that we have, we will continue to deal with those in private.”

But criticisms of the chief flared again this week amid reports in The Los Angeles Times that the firefighting force that was on duty when the Palisades fire started could have been much larger. In years past, the department often paid outgoing shifts overtime to stay at work in times of alarming wind forecasts and tinder-dry conditions.

Internal documents reviewed by The New York Times also showed that the department’s plan on the day of the fire called for advance positioning of only nine additional fire trucks — near Hollywood, the Santa Monica Mountains and elsewhere in the San Fernando Valley — but none in Pacific Palisades.

Patrick Butler, a former L.A.F.D. assistant chief who is now chief of the Redondo Beach, Calif., fire department, said that positioning firefighters and equipment near fire zones in significant numbers well in advance during periods of high wildfire danger has long been a key strategy in the department. “It’s unfathomable to me how this happened, except for extreme incompetence and no understanding of fire operations,” he said.

Advertisement

Others said the fire chief should have kept both the incoming and outgoing shifts of firefighters on duty before the fire as a precaution.

“I can’t speak to why she didn’t exercise it, but it’s a known tactic and it would have doubled the work force,” said Rick Crawford, a former L.A.F.D. battalion chief who is now the emergency and crisis management coordinator for the U.S. Capitol. “I’m not saying it would have prevented the fire, or that the fire wouldn’t have gotten out of control. But she lost a strategic advantage by not telling the off-going shift, ‘You shall stay and work.’”

In the letter purportedly signed by current and retired officers in the department, there were complaints that Chief Crowley had also failed to temporarily call back experienced fire commanders who had recently retired.

“While no one is saying that this fire could have been stopped, there is no doubt among all of us that if you had done things right and prepared the L.A.F.D. for an incident of this magnitude, fatalities would have been reduced, and property would have been saved,” they wrote.

Sharon Delugach, a member of the Los Angeles Fire Commission, said that rumors of disgruntlement within the department had been on the radar but had not risen to the commission’s formal attention before the fires broke out.

Advertisement

Much of the criticism, she said, seemed to reflect sentiments of sexism or homophobia — Chief Crowley is the first lesbian to lead the department — or came from those who were unhappy about change.

Whatever the source, Ms. Delugach said, the timing of the latest dissent is not ideal when many outside of the department seem intent on scoring political points.

“I’m sure they do have very legitimate concerns and I’m sure everybody in the department is there for the right reason,” Ms. Delugach said of the internal criticism. “It’s a shame all this dirty laundry is being aired in the moment of fire.”

Ms. Delugach predicted that Chief Crowley’s future would hinge less on internal and external critiques than on her relationship with Ms. Bass.

“It’s whether she and the mayor can work together, that’s the real question,” Ms. Delugach said. “I hope they can.”

Advertisement

Rachel Nostrant, Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs, Kate Selig and Katie Benner contributed reporting.

Continue Reading

News

Brussels orders X to hand over documents on algorithm

Published

on

Brussels orders X to hand over documents on algorithm

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Brussels has ordered Elon Musk to fully disclose recent changes made to recommendations on X, stepping up an investigation into the role of the social media platform in European politics.

The expanded probe by the European Commission, announced on Friday, requires X to hand over internal documents regarding its recommendation algorithm. The Commission also issued a “retention order” for all relevant documents relating to how the algorithm could be amended in future.

In addition, the EU regulator requested access to information on how the social media network moderates and amplifies content.

Advertisement

The move follows complaints from German politicians that X’s algorithm is promoting content by the far right ahead of the country’s February 23 elections. Musk has come out in favour of the nationalist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, arguing that it will save Germany.

When asked if the expanded probe was a response to a controversial interview Musk conducted last week with AfD co-leader Alice Weidel, a Commission spokesperson said the new request “helps us monitor systems around all these events taking place”.

However, he said it was “completely independent of any political considerations or any specific events”.

“We are committed to ensuring that every platform operating in the EU respects our legislation, which aims to make the online environment fair, safe, and democratic for all European citizens,” said Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s digital chief.

X did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

This is a developing story

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending