Everyone says that Dean Baquet is wonderful. I only read good things about him. So what has he done that's wonderful? Has he actually accomplished anything or is he simply a good player of corporate politics? I've posed this question to many journalists, including ones who work at the LA Times, but nobody can point out anything he's accomplished.

I think Baquet actually has it backwards. The explosion of weblogs and other sites (including Drudge who I don't like) has done the reverse for journalism -- made it greater part of our lives and, ironically, more respected because such an integral, participatory (to use an old and redolent phrase) part of our democracy. What Baquet may be complaining about is the natural dminishment of conventional media under these circumstances. So be it. As the I Ching says, "Change. Opportunity."

Interesting how neither Drudge nor the commenters addresses Baquet's point about the confusion between rumor and fact.

Tim, Drudge and the LA Times are in different games. LAT is primarily about publishing a responsible daily paper. Drudge is about breaking stories and taking risks. LAT's rarely breaks stories. I bet Matt Drudge has broken more stories over the past five years than the LAT.

Luke, perhaps breaking stories AND being responsible is the challenge, whether you report for a newspaper or a Web site.

"It's not clear that Drudge knew that."

It's not clear if Drudge knows anything...

How do you get credit for "breaking" a story simply by linking to it? Drudge hasn't been reporting much of anything in years.

When news breaks, you'll usually read about it minutes earlier on Drudge than the LAT. For this reason, Drudge gets almost as much traffic as the entire LAT website.

I remember covering a story on HIV-infections in the porn industry. I faxed the news in 1997 to the LAT. No story.

Over the next year, I broke on the Internet the news on about ten different HIV-cases.

The LAT finally wrote a short story on the matter in May 1998 and a long story on the matter in January 2003 (largely about what happened in 1997-98).

Tim -- I'll address Baquet's point: Regardless of the appropriateness of ignoring rumor, or indeed of deciding pre-emptively that most any information about Kobe Bryant's accuser will not be published, Baquet's statement exhibits an infantilizing attitude toward his customers. I think people *can* differentiate between fact and rumor, and sift through the biases and quality of what they consume. Assuming that Baquet's audience does not possess his special discerning skill is standard-issue gatekeeper arrogance.

Tim, it would be wonderful if everybody could be equally good at everything. If Matt Drudge could be as responsible and ethical as the LA Times and if the LA Times could be as good as Drudge at breaking stories. Unfortunately, life does not work that way.

It's like going to a singles function and wishing that the girl with the great legs had the personality of another girl, the brains of another girl, and the tits of another girl. Life does not work that way.

Persons and organizations have strengths and weaknesses.

What Matt said. Also, that whole hand-wringing, "Whither Journalism?" genre of stories misses the real problem, which is: What's the point of freedom of the press if the press becomes so boring that no one reads it anymore? If "edgy" writers (to use D'Antonio's favorite perjorative) get attention -- meaning, their stories get read -- well, good for them, and too bad for D'Antonio.

What Cathy said. Also, too many dailies are too concerned with offending their readers to publish much of anything that would simply awaken them.

What Amy said.

Matt, D'Antonio presented Baquet's comment in the context of describing the Times' restraint in the Bryant case. I think this restraint has served the public far better than the excesses of tabloids and TV or the ugly misogyny of some local bloggers and shock jocks. So, yes, sometimes journalists are gatekeepers -- i.e., they have to make judgments (including *moral* judgments). I don't see how this can or should be avoided.

Cathy, Amy -- I have to presume that you are not for "sizzle" at the expense of truth or fairness.

Tim -- In any context, I think Baquet's comments are condescending and wrong. *I* could be wrong about that, obviously.

Here's the quote again, excerpted from another woe-is-media handwringing story the LAT ran a month ago, that I commented on at http://reason.com/hitandrun/002285.shtml

[T]he paper has decided not to publish facts that are not relevant to the alleged assault, such as the behavior of the accuser. […] The Times has carried no stories attempting to profile the accuser's mood or behavior apart from describing the evening of June 30, when she says Bryant forced her to have sex in his hotel room […]

"Newspapers should be more conservative than they were 10 years ago," Baquet said. "The Internet, the Matt Drudges, Web sites — people can't tell the difference any more between rumor and fact."

There are two problems here, in my view: 1) Baquet's lack of faith in people's ability to "tell the difference," and 2) the Times' astonishing declaration that the behavior of Bryant's accuser is irrelevant to the he-said, she-said criminal case. How the living hell do they know it's irrelevant? Answer: They don't, which is why they've run long features on the "behavior" of Kobe, his legal team, and the prosecution, for starters.

Shoot, as a Laker fanatic I'm happy that the Kobe case has receded from the headlines somewhat (especially in favor of a juicy recall). But I don't think the Times deserves extra credit for pre-emptively deciding that everyone's behavior is fair game except the accuser's, and it is more than typical that such a decision would be announced while A) bemoaning the lack of standards of non-Times publications (especially on the Internet!), and B) insulting the intelligence of Angelenos.

I don't think, and I've certainly never advocated, that journalists should avoid making judgments. Baquet's judgment in this case just seems lacking to me.

Although Luke Ford's awkward analogy to a singles function reveals more about the male psyche than this particular issue, it does inspire me - in the wake of the recent anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I had a dream" speech - to reveal my own humble LAT subscriber dream. Namely, that Baquet somehow be magically recombined into a newspaperman with ...:

- The mind of Thomas Friedman

- The mettle of Carl Bernstein

- The spirit of Ben Bradley and Martha Graham

- The sense of humor of Art Buchwald

- And only the Internet surfing skills of one Matt Druge.

Ron

Well, Matt, I certainly wouldn't want to insult anyone's intelligence, least of all the journalistic giants who misidentified Bryant's accuser and put another woman's picture up on the Web. What's a little hate mail among strangers?

And come to think of it, what incredible temerity on the part of the actual alleged "victim" to put a cloud over the upcoming basketball season by bringing up all this negativity. Hey, guys, someone has to pay for all the grief she's brought to sports fans everywhere. And why wait for the slow wheels of the criminal justice system to decide which of the things she's done in her life are relevant to the case? Isn't that what celebrity journalism is for? It's sure quicker.

And what's with those wusses at the Times? Don't they know that Blogger Nation is on the march?

Aww, come on Tim. Lay off Kobe. If the press won't report on her behavior, they shouldn't report on Kobe's behavior. It's not like he called a press conference to talk about personal details of his sex life or anything. Err.

Gimme a break, JimE. I keep hearing that *attitude* is what you gotta have these days, so I just thought I'd try some on... How's it fit?

Tim -- I guess grade-school sarcasm is the last refuge for someone who is tired of reasonably debating the contents of Dean Baquet's statement (which is, after all, what you sneeringly accused posters here of not doing in the first place).

As for your other satirical depictions of my POV, I'll just state the obvious: none of them come within spitting distance of my own views.

Matt, for style I consulted your blog.

If you prefer less sarcasm (you know, I'm just trying to get the hang of this blog thing -- not an easy thing for an elderly gent like me, and I'm having a devil of a time coming up with nifty things like that "Booze Crustamante" of yours), let me put it this way...

I think you idealize consumers of news. The fact is that there a lot of people out there who have a hard time differentiating between rumor and fact, and the *new media* has made it more difficult for them. Levels of understanding and sophistication vary. Levels of good will vary -- some people are malevolently inclined, look for any justification to go off at whatever group angers them most. These are some of the reasons why media has a responsibility to get it right and show restraint. I'm completely unpersuaded by your very tendentious and rhetorical barb that Baquet is somehow "insulting the intelligence of Angelenos."

With respect to what is or isn't relevant about the accuser, I strongly believe that is for the courts to decide. Both sides in the case will try to use the press to inflict character assassination on the opposition. The press should resist and the judge should do his damndest to control it. I think a large number of "news" entitities -- both new media and old -- have behaved atrociously toward the accuser and that appalls me. We are fast moving back to the days of putting women who come forward through a gauntlet of public humiliation, a development that seems to cheer conservatives. I find it outrageous and sickening.

Of course Bryant is equally deserving of fairness. Frankly, I haven't read a lot of what the Times has written about him lately (mostly in the Sports section, from what I've seen), but what I have skimmed has focused not on speculation as to what may or may not have happened in Colorado, but on how he has handled this as a public figure and sports hero.

Again, I don't see that the facts support your claim that the Times has treated Bryant unfairly. And I disagree in the strongest possible terms with any claim that his accuser is fair game. That is nothing short of a return to barbarism

Having gotten that off my chest, I think I'll retire from blog commentary. It's probably something I shouldn't be doing anyway, for a host of reasons. Ironically, LA Examiner was the first blog I ever visited, back when I was looking at pro- and anti-secession sites. I liked the work you and Ken did there, but what became exceedingly tiresome was the almost *jihadi* sensibility on display against the Times.

Hey, I have some gripes with the Times, both personal and professional. However, I'm an L.A. native and grew up reading the damn thing. It has its faults, but in the end it's a damn good newspaper, easily the best, most credible and most reliable news source in the western U.S. They're fair game for criticism, surely, but you and some of your colleagues seem obsessed with them. Your posts on Baquet's comment seem right in that vein.

Exceedingly tiresome. What more can I say?

Oh, yes, and thanks for the souvenir. Having you put the knock on me for sarcasm is incredibly rich.

Tim -- "Booze Crustamente" ain't sarcasm; it's a stupid play on words designed to make me laugh. And hopefully, on the rare occasions that I *am* sarcastic, I don't invent a bunch of inaccurate assumptions about a stranger's beliefs, all in the name of defending journalism standards.

Clearly we differ on how smart the audience is. That said, it's still an "insult" to say people "can't tell the difference any more between rumor and fact," just as it would be an "insult" if I said that Tim McGarry can't tell the difference between criticism and a jihad. Even if both statements were perfectly true (which I don't think they are), they would be "insulting," and there's absolutely nothing "tenditious" about pointing that out.

You want the "courts to decide" what the media publishes about the Kobe Bryant case; I don't share your comfort level with having a judge determine what's newsworthy and what isn't. And though this may surprise you, I agree that people have behaved monstrously toward Kobe's accuser, especially online, and that both sides are trying to manipulate the press. What I *disagree* with, in terms of the Times' cautious approach, is that it becomes prejudicial against Kobe by subjecting him to character profiles while declaring the accuser hands-off. Sure, he's a public figure and a local hero, but to announce pre-emptively that *nothing* about the accuser will ever be published goes too far, in my view. What if, to throw out a total hypothetical, she had made 10 similar accusations in the past? I think it's fine to be extremely cautious, I just don't a think a news organization should *rule out* all coverage before facts are known. And I don't think keeping your options open is anything like a "return to barbarism"; indeed, I would point out that many people I normally criticize more strongly than I criticize the Times -- newspaper ombudsmen -- have called for the naming of the victim, among other correctives that go much farther than anything I've actually advocated.

Finally, I should mention that, unlike most jihadis, I don't actually hate my supposed target, or wish them badly. I criticize because they are an important local institution, and I always thought we were supposed to criticize public institutions. Still, it got boring enough for us that when Roderick showed up we gladly gave up writing regularly about media stuff.

Peace, Matt, but I see no reason to amend my comments above. Visitors here can make of this exchange what they will.

Tim loves the LA Times because his profession (PR) substantially controls it. That came from one of the leaders in the LAT's entertainment section (said in print about six months ago, I forget who) - that much, if not most of its coverage, came from publicists.

Publicists are paid liars and the enemy of journalism.