Jack Ass Hill

I'm watching Jack Cashill on C-SPAN's Booktv (courtesy TiVo), talking up his new book, Hoodwinked.

Regarding Alex Haley's plagiarism suit (in the late '70s, author Harold Courlander sued Haley for cribbing material in Roots from Courlander's own novel, The African), Cashill says this:

Haley settled up for $650,000. That's $2 million by today's standards. Now, it got almost no media coverage. The only article I could find from a mainstream journal was in the Washington Post. Here's how they headlined it--they made it a local story: "Bethesda author"--[incredulously] Bethesda author--"settles Roots suit."

Now, when Cashill says "almost no media coverage," is he talking about Time Magazine? The New York Times? The Times of London (no link, but story is referenced here, e.g.)? Which other "mainstream journal" does he mean?

In fact, I had trouble finding a "mainstream journal" of the period that didn't cover the story (despite the confidentiality agreement that was part of the settlement). But then, in all fairness to Cashill, that's probably because I don't have the resources Cashill had when he researched his book.

Comments

[Stoic]

Thank you for your remarks. I watched the C-Span rebroadcast of the program last night, July 24th.

Your response to Cashill's speech is one of the only responses I can currently find on the net. His indictment of Mead, Carson, Haley and others deserves a detailed response, no? I would like to be able to respond to his claims and wonder where a suitable counterargument can be found.

For instance, Cashill claims that Prof. Ward Churchill is not an American Indian. Regardless of the relevance of this claim, is Cashill right? Can't someone take Cashill to task and closely examine his claims with an aim toward refuting him?

If you have a moment and are able to respond I would appreciate it.

Thanks.

stoic