 
|
 |
|
I don't know Hugh Hewitt's work well enough to know whether he is regularly dishonest to his blog's audience or just blinded by partisanship (or maybe posts without thinking it through, as bloggers--myself included--sometimes do). But his rant against the L.A. Times today cries out for a small fisking.
He convicts the Times of liberal bias in its coverage of Friday's hike in state vehicle fees, but all that his evidence shows me is that Hewitt is upset the paper hasn't joined a crusade against Gray Davis. Hewitt, on the other hand, leaves out key facts and distorts others.
He does makes a good point that the Times did not play the story on A1. I poked around and found that papers ranging from the San Francisco Chronicle to the Orange County Register did. I would have at least put a "refer" on the front page, sending readers to the story. But is the story buried in today's LAT? Hardly. It's above the fold in the California section of the main L.A. edition. The Times also had a defensible journalistic reason not to front the story on Saturday -- on Friday a big headline at the top of the California section and a detailed story by Evan Halper reported the fees would be tripled. So on Saturday it was old news to Times readers, not "the biggest story of the day," as Hewitt complains. (For the masses who aren't politics junkies, the train derailment in Commerce was a pretty big story.)
Hewitt also complains that the Times story refers to "vehicle license fees" instead of the "car tax." Well, so do most of the other papers, including his hometown Register -- after all, one is the official name we'll see on our new higher bills, the other is an anti-Davis Republican slogan. Weakest of all, Hewitt asserts that the Times story downplays Davis' role and the fact that Republicans plan to fight it. Here's the LAT lead, you decide:
SACRAMENTO — The Davis administration tripled the state vehicle license fee Friday, sending Republican legislators scrambling to mount legal challenges to stop the increase and ballot initiatives to abolish the tax altogether.
The next graf gives the basics -- the hike kicks in Oct. 1 and will cost the average car owner $158 a year -- then there's two grafs on driver anger about the higher fees, and a graf quoting Davis on why he wanted the increase. Not exactly hiding the controversy.
Hewitt calls it "a study in partisan hackery." Hmm...one's tempted to quip that Hugh should know all about such things. Actually, I've found he's usually pretty upfront about being a 24/7 Republican voice. Unfortunately, I'll be more skeptical from now on of media observations signed by Mr. Hewitt, knowing that they're probably something else in disguise.
... and what was his problem with the polar bear story? I thought it was great reporting, and pretty nicely written, too.
Posted by: The Raven at June 22, 2003 11:10 AMGreat job, LAO. I am probably just right of center, but find most of the claims of liberal bias agains the LAT to be selective reading. Many of the reporters on the Times staff may in fact be liberals, but overall it is a soulless, corporate endeavor whose main form of bias is for the status-quo.
Posted by: Fred Eric at June 22, 2003 12:56 PMSorry, i must dissent. I normally consider Hugh to be a shameless hack, thought a courageous Christian. In this instance, I think HE was spot-on. But, in the end, it won't matter. Gray has no friends in the party and will be forced to resign before the recall, lest Issa should get the gov's office.
Posted by: BobfromPlaya at June 22, 2003 02:44 PMWould you please elaborate as to why calling a tax a "tax" is an anti-Davis Republican slogan? What's next, property taxes replaced by "home ownership fees" not subject to Prop 13?
Posted by: Xrlq at June 22, 2003 06:54 PMSince I didn't do that, I'll just answer this way. It is a tax, and I have no problem with calling it that as a shorthand once people know what is meant. This particular tax, however, has existed for decades, and (apparently) has always been called the vehicle license fee -- that's what I pay every year. That would seem to make it the best term for the media to use, if the purpose is to inform people what they will be paying more of. "Car tax" is the vague term of art adopted by Davis' foes, for pretty clear reasons. It's not inaccurate, just less accurate. If you want to rile people up, you use it. If you want to play it straight, you use the other.
Posted by: Kevin Roderick at June 22, 2003 08:16 PM
of LA Observed
Spot-on analysis. That's why this blog has become indispensible.
Posted by: Mike at June 21, 2003 11:21 PM