world class bun fight

Such is the constitution of civil society, that whilst a few persons are distinguished by riches, by honours, and by knowledge, the body of the people is condemned to obscurity, ignorance and poverty. And rich or poor, a few persons exist simply for our amusement.

World famous film critic Roger Ebert and beseiged media mogul Conrad Black are engaged in a rather entertaining bun fight.

Ebert worked for Black when Black was CEO of Hollinger International Inc., the parent company of the Chicago Sun-Times.

On the eve of a strike at the Sun-Times, Ebert in an e-mail lashed out against Black and his former publisher David Radler, who are accused of lining their pockets with tens of millions of dollars of the firm's money.

Ebert fired off his e-mail, which read in part:

"There were obviously millions of dollars winging away to the Radler and Black billfolds while we worked in a building where even basic maintenance was ignored."

In familiar Black style, Conrad replied in a letter sent to both the Sun-Times and its crosstown rival the Chicago Tribune.

"I have been disappointed to read your complaints about the former Hollinger International management," Black wrote.

"I vividly recall your avaricious negotiating techniques through your lawyer, replete with threats to quit, and your generous treatment from David Radler, which yielded you an income of over $500,000 [US] per year from us . . ."

He also used the letter to deny the allegations against him. "In the light of these facts, and the many kindnesses David Radler and I showered on you, your proletarian posturing on behalf of those threatening to strike the Sun-Times and your base ingratitude are very tiresome."

Yesterday in a full page of the Sun-Times, Ebert replied:

"Dear Conrad,

"One of the things I have always admired about you, and that sets you aside from the general run of proprietors, is that you so articulately and amusingly say exactly what is on your mind. I am not at all surprised by your letter to me, because I would assume that is how you would feel; what is refreshing is that you say so.

"Let me just say in response that I have never complained about my salary at the Sun-Times, but to describe my lawyer as 'avaricious' is a bit much; he engaged in spirited negotiations, as he should have, and he and you settled on a contract. It goes without saying that any contract negotiation includes the possibility that either party might choose to leave rather than to sign. I hope you are grateful that I did not demand an additional payment for agreeing not to compete with myself. Since you have made my salary public, let me say that when I learned that Barbara [Amiel, Black's wife] received $300,000 a year from the paper for duties described as reading the paper and discussing it with you, I did not feel overpaid. . . .

"I enjoyed immensely those times when I had dinner or conversation with you and Barbara, and with David and Rona [Radler's wife]. You are all charming, witty, and intelligent. You can imagine my dismay when I read auditor's reports indicating the company was run as a 'kleptocracy,' and that, between you, you allegedly pocketed 97 per cent of Hollinger's profits. This while the escalators in the building were actually turned off to save on electricity and maintenance. . . .

"I recall the friendly dinner we had on the day you bought the paper. I observed, 'Well, there's one thing for sure. You can't get to the right of the Tribune.' You exchanged an amused look with Barbara. You did indeed position the paper to the right of the Tribune, in an overwhelmingly Democratic city and marginally Democratic state, trumping my proletarian posturing with your own aristocratic, not to say medieval, persuasion. But I admire you for sticking to your ideological guns . . . If you had been as forthright about your finances as about your politics, we might not be having this correspondence."

Sincerely,
Roger