Marketplace: News Archives

Thursday, October 5, 2000
(Jump to the rundown)

It's Thursday, October 5th. I'm David Brancaccio.

There were spectacular images in Belgrade today, many reminiscent of the fall of communism in central Europe a decade ago. Several hundred thousand civilians, opponents of Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, filled the streets, seizing government buildings and TV stations. Late in the day the state-run news agency seemed to have joined in the uprising, referring to opposition leader Vojislav Kostunica as "the elected president of Yugoslavia". Paul Watson, who's reporting from Yugoslavia for the Los Angeles Times, says police have been either unwilling or unable to stand up to the wave of demonstrators, some officers, even stripping off their uniforms to join in.

Watson: "It appears as though the police in some cases are openly sympathetic, and in other cases are simply afraid. But both of those add up to very clear indications that the backbone of Milosevic's regime is starting to crack in a very serious way."

Today's drama follows a political crisis, which began with elections on September 24th. Milosevic refused to recognize the outcome of the vote, which by most accounts showed Kostunica the new President. Milosevic, who's been indicted for war crimes, has not been seen since the start of today's popular uprising. And there remains the crucial question of what role the Yugoslav military might play.

Watson: "I believe that all it would take would be for a few high ranking officers to publicly state that they support Kostunica and that they're calling on their men to do the same to push everything in Kostunica's way. Now, that's a very, very large guess at this point because there's no indication at all that the military is not remaining loyal to Milosevic. That's something we're going to see over the next hours and days."

Paul Watson has been covering developments in Yugoslavia for the Los Angeles Times.

One of the oldest and largest auction houses in the world has admitted practices that cheated customers out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Sotheby's and its former CEO Diana Brooks pleaded guilty today to violating federal anti-trust laws. Marketplace's Michelle Brier joins us with details. Michelle, how did the scam work?

Brier: "Well, it was a classic price fixing scam, David. Sotheby's conspired with Christie's, its arch-rival, from 1993 to 1999 to inflate commissions, exchange customer information to control all the deals. They agreed not to negotiate with customers. They agreed not to offer interest-free loans to customers, which used to be standard practice, and they also agreed not to make any charitable contributions as part of their pricing schedule for customers along with Christie's."

Is anybody going to do any time in jail?

Brier: "That's very unlikely. This plea agreement with the Justice Department, which was announced today, has Sotheby's paying $45 million in a fine. Incidentally, that's one-fifth of their illegal proceeds from this scheme. Diana Brooks will be sentenced at a later date but it's expected that she'll avoid jail by cooperating with the ongoing investigation. Christie's officials, meanwhile, cut their own deal earlier this year."

And what of the poor Sotheby's customers?

Brier: "Well, both auction houses, Sotheby's and Christie's, faced huge lawsuits from their customers and investors. They've got another agreement in the works to pay $512 million. That's to repay losses and damages."

Michelle Brier in New York. Sotheby's and its former CEO still face sentencing.

If you don't like the way your local TV or radio station covers tonight's vice presidential debate, you might think you could just change stations and get a different take on the news. But not so fast: under deregulation, stations may share more than just owners, they might share newsrooms, too. That helps explain why some public interest groups are upset that federal regulators are suspending two so-called fairness rules for broadcasters just before the election. Bob Moon reports the irony is broadcasters aren't happy either:

Moon: "Since 1983, broadcasters have been pressing the Federal Communications Commission to drop rules that require them to give candidates and individuals free air time to respond to editorial endorsements or personal attacks. Some broadcasters had sued in federal court, when the FCC suddenly decided yesterday to suspend the rules for the next 60 days and assess the results. Radio-Television News Directors Association president Barbara Cochran is crying foul, saying time's too short now for broadcasters to deliver any meaningful endorsements."

Cochran: "It's a bogus test. It's a phony test. It's like Lucy and Charlie Brown and the football."

Moon: "Cochran says the FCC should simply throw the rules out altogether, because they effectively muzzle broadcasters by requiring even fringe candidates to be notified and given equal time."

Cochran: "In most communities, there are three, four television stations and at least a couple of news stations, including perhaps a public radio station, that might choose to make such an endorsement. But because the rules are so onerous, no stations do it."

Moon: "Angela Campbell, at Georgetown University Law Center's Institute for Public Representation, worries local broadcasters especially might now be tempted to use their influence unfairly"

Campbell: "It may be a relative of theirs, it may be one of their advertisers, they may have strong political views. And I think it's fine for them to editorialize, but I don't think it's fair for a station to only editorialize for or against a certain candidate and then not give the other candidates a chance to respond."

Moon: "But broadcasters argue they should be as free as newspapers are to speak their minds. The broadcasters groups are expected to seek to block the FCC's action in court. I'm Bob Moon for Marketplace."

And that's the top of our news for Thursday. Today the Dow fell 59 points and the Nasdaq fell another 1.5 percent.