The L.A. Times had the newsiest of the weekend media stories on itself, reporting that about 1,000 subscribers have cancelled since the paper began publishing reports on Arnold Schwarzenegger's manhandling of various women. More in the New York Times and on CNN's Reliable Sources. Meanwhile, Arnold Steinberg weighs in with a couple of pieces at National Review Online, Jill Stewart asserts that the Times also should investigate Gray Davis, and journalists Matt Welch and Amy Langfield ponder the question of when is the right or wrong time to publish an investigative piece.
Without knowing any of the details, I think the Times was right to look into the history of allegations against a leading candidate, and when they found credible cases to publish rather than ignore what they found. I'd have liked it to be published sooner, and I'm sure John Carroll did too, but a story is finished when it's finished. Anyone who seriously thinks the Times timed the stories to hurt Schwarzengger or help Davis -- or to "sell newspapers" -- is, in my view, helplessly clueless. But a lot of people believe it, and Carroll or a top level editor from the paper could have done a better job explaining how these stories happen.
Light posting around here will continue awhile.