Fascinating piece by Stewart. Anyone living in Los Angeles who has concerns (like I do) about the paper's coverage is going to be very interested in whether her interviewee is telling the truth about John Carroll. Mickey Kaus says he's looking into it independently. As much as the Times appears to have hoped that this whole thing would blow over, I don't think the story is going away.

Stewart's story -- if true -- is explosive. Her interviewee essentially accuses Carroll of consciously manipulating the timing of the story. *If* true, that is a very serious allegation, particularly because Carroll very strongly and publicly denied any such thing.

As I argued last night (at this link: http://patterico.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_patterico_archive.html#106618139571395176), Howell Raines was brought down for arguably less. Some will call that hyperbolic, but I don't think so. The editor of this paper took half of a page of op-ed space, about 1700 words, to give his personal defense of the Arnold story. He undeniably misstated many of the accusations that had been leveled against his paper (for details, read the first part of Stewart's column, or my analysis at this link: http://patterico.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_patterico_archive.html#106597087399833733). Now an insider has apparently gone further and accused him of behavior which, if true, makes his public defense substantially false. If Carroll published a false defense -- and again, I am not saying he did, but Stewart's interviewee is (although not in so many words) -- that would be a very big problem for him indeed.

"Some will call that hyperbolic." Perhaps. But many, many more will call it loony.

Always nice to see that the spirit of Prof. Irwin Corey is still alive.

Whatever. I know that I am not going to convince "expat" of anything, based on having read his comments in the related thread below -- comments that are dismissive of the opinion of anybody not involved in the newspaper business.

For the benefit of others, however, I will simply point out that I have not said Stewart's story is true. What I have said is that, *if* her story is accurate and her interviewee is telling the truth -- a big "if" -- then Carroll's defense of the Arnold hit piece was substantially false. If that's the case, it is a serious, serious problem for him.

Now the issue is: is what Stewart has printed accurate and truthful? The anonymity of the source raises serious questions. But is she making it up out of whole cloth? While I have no doubt expat thinks so, I would also guess that most other people will conclude she is not. The real question is likely not whether her interviewee really said these things, but whether what he/she said is true.

These observations seem to me inarguable. To call them "loony" is to imply that I have concluded the allegations to be true -- which I most assuredly have not. Read what I said. Expat is taking a page from the Carroll playbook: exaggerate your opponent's allegations (sometimes slyly and implicitly), then ridicule them. Nice try.

Jill Stewart, along with a few others in the LA blogging circle for reasons personal and collectively shared HATE the LA Times. The content of the alleged quotes from an anonymous source are a concern, but regretttably coming from Stewart I read on cautiously. A good writer and often I find myself in agreement with Stewart, but I have to admit I have thought she is reckless at times especially when there is the appearance of 'reporting' in what otherwise is an opinion piece.

So exactly what was her INITIAL concern that the Times did not blast DAVIS enough? My only question is not why did the TIMES print what it printed, but is it true?

Looking at it from another angle, if they did print the Arnold thing to close to the election - then Stewart is guilty of that also. In HER response she goes on about how DAVIS treated his employees and his temper tantrums and she did that RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION also.

Now she quotes "unnamed" sources just like the TIMES. I see no difference between the two. They both have agendas.

Stewart arguably stretches the point a couple of times, it's true. But that interview has a lot of damning stuff between quotation marks. That's not her "opinion" -- unless she's making it up or distorting the quotes.

Concerned: obviously she printed it right before the election because the Times printed the Arnold story right before the election. She was pointing out the Times' apparent hypocrisy. It's not the first time she ever raised the issue; she raised it in 1997.

As for the anonymous sources, I agree that this is a concern.

Well without knowing the source we can't know how legit they are and she does not define what a longtime respected timesian is. The credibility of this story is in question, as is her objectivity. Just as the TIMES piece was in question until the women stepped forward. However I must say the fact that the TIMES quoted the women anonymously and then they were all too willing to come forward, does make me wonder if they even attempted to get the women to use their names or of they just "offered" anonyminity so they could get the story.

As far ast Stewart goes, it seems to me she really wanted to see the TIMES blast Davis. She even says she asked them why they did not run story about his tantrum.

By the way when I say opinion disguised as reporting read some of her columns. I am not just talking about this one.

"...the Times piece was in question until the women stepped forward."
"...the Times quoted the women anonymously and then they were all too willing to come forward..."

Such objectivity. In the original Times story, some of the women were quoted by name. Not that there's a laughably anti-Times bias running through these threads or anything.

You folks are too easy.

Advantage Patterico!

On the one hand it does take some reporting skills to determine the relative merits of the accusations of groping and out of control temper tantrums/swearing/ashtray throwing by Ahnuld and Gray respectively. Now I'm admittedly biased, but Gray's alleged improprieties appear to be more relevant, more serious, and better documented & supported than Ahnuld's. Tom McClintock, for one directly confirmed one such out of control fit during one such meeting with Gray.

What does not require reporting skills but does require an ability to clearly read english, are Carroll's statements taking Clintonism to a new level by clearly misrepresenting and exaggerating what his accusers have said so that he can get on his high horse and shoot down the strawmen.

I stand corrected Pat. For the record I see problems with both sides. I don't see Stewart as objective or in the interest of fair play either.

She almost seems like she had a VENDETTA because the Times NEVER ran this stuff.

As far as Carroll goes, the TIMES has spent more time talking about their own story than Arnold did. It looks like most of what they wrote THIS TIME was right, but I do not believe Carroll's story for a second. It lacks credibility, same as Stewart's.

With the likes of Jill Stewart,and there are others who frequent the comment area of this blog, the anti LA Times sentiment runs so deep, it is difficult for me to read anything she says critical of the Times with any objectivity. She is an otherwise good writer, but taking on a subject with whom it is clear there is a vendetta detracts from the position one is trying to make.

Ben,

I agree 100 percent.

Thank you Lloyd.

Now we see a new tactic: use statements by another commenter to attack us all. Expat, "Concerned" speaks for "Concerned"; I speak for myself. People reading these threads can judge for themselves who is biased and how. And whether you might have your own bias. I will admit deep suspicion of the Times in certain contexts and on certain topics. I have serious reservations about the Stewart story, but the dodging and weaving I have seen (primarily in Carroll's op-ed) makes me wonder whether she might not be on to something. Time will tell.

Jill's column/rant is classic JS - astoundingly arrogant and comically inconsistent. I am no fan of hers, but in many cases, I think she is absolutely correct, and just as often, she is ridiculously wrong. Sometimes, you can practically hear the axe grinding as you read her stuff.

Her interview with the timesdude is, on the surface, pretty damning. But anyone who's covered politics or court cases knows that you double and triple check your info by getting other sources to confirm what you're hearing.

In some cases, you can't get secondary confirmation of an incident cause only two people were involved (i.e. sexual harassment allegations).

since she claims to have sources at the times (so that's at least two), most of this stuff should have been double checked with another source. and i don't believe that this senior timesdude is the only high ranking source she has there. but if timesdude is her only jewel, she has a responsibility to admit she can't confirm what timesdude is saying.

but some of this stuff had to be heard by other lower-ranking folks. for instance, look at the "full scrub of Arnold" statement that was allegedly made by Carroll. That should be easy to confirm.

And further down in the same graf we have timesdude saying Carroll's reaction was "visceral."

Fine. how about an example of being visceral? like a friggin anecdote?

The allegations regarding the steroid story and it being held are seriously lacking context. Carroll or somebody high up must have had to explain to a reporter or a copy editor why the steroid piece was edited first. Someone must have asked.

I'm sure there are reporters or editors (like timesdude) who feel arnold got shafted and I'm sure someone must have asked that question. if timesdude doesn't have an answer, jill needed to get one.

but she didn't. she just assumes - which means she may be right, or she might be wrong.

that's sloppy reporting.

and this stuff about the paper using reporting methods like they were cracking a criminal enterprise? all smart, aggressive, obsessive, persistent reporters will use any legal and ethical means necessary to get what they need. now, i'm sure what is ethical and legal to a lawyer may not be the same for a bloodthirsty reporter.

it sounds like they were really digging into arnold. and they had to, 'cause arnold's lawyers would have a feeding frenzy with the times if they found a reason to sue. Given the current public hatred of the press, it would not be hard for arnold's lawyers to win big, if they had a case. maybe the lawyers would get enough $$ for riordan to start his paper! ha ha ha

finally, jill's example about the woman being harrassed to the point that she had to give her story...again, that can easily be double-checked. some reporters are disgraceful and don't realize no means no.

i think her issue about bradley is right on. a correction is needed. and i think she's right about davis. if the davis blow up was reported up north (hey jill - how about a link to the friggin paper or radio that ran the story!), then the times needed to put something in the paper, cause i would have to believe it was true. my guess is that the la time was too snobby to report what a rival paper discovered before they did. unfortunately, this happens a lot. sometimes there are valid reasons for not following another paper's lead. but in cases, it's a matter of foolish pride.

Wow: an analysis (from Phillipe) that points out weaknesses in Stewart's story without insulting commenters. Good points all.

I wonder if this flap is just one more in a series of problems at the Los Angeles Times before it eventually falls apart due to dropping readership and stagnating, if not falling, revenues?

The Tribune Co isn't as bottom-line obsessive as most other major publishing firms are, but there's going to come a point when those corporate folk in Chicago will start making bigger waves about the LA paper being a business that spends too much, makes too little. And this Davis/Schwazenegger controversy isn't helping change longterm trends already working against the newspaper's strength.

The biggest problem with Jill's piece, other than the excruciatingly sound of an axe grinding that accompanies it, is that she seems to believe that a single incident of a candidate (allegedly) smashing a TV set is morally equivalent with substantiated and multiple incidents of another candidate's sexual groping of women who didn't want to be groped. It's so bizarre to equate them that it sounds like an arguement Rush Limbaugh would make.

Hell, I'd like it too if papers didn't always kowtow to winning candidates like the way they clean up President Bush's speech and overlook all sorts of personality flaws in other politicians, but smashing a TV and borderline sexual assault are NOT even in the same league of interest and importance.

Mr. Ricey, there's much more to the Davis allegations than one TV-smashing. Read Jill's pieces. Davis has allegedly assaulted workers, shaking them and violently shoving them. This is arguably worse than Arnold's behavior.

To all:

Here is a question ...
If Carroll and company had not done the Arnold story that day and done a Davis story that day about his tantrums, in your opinion, would Stewart have said THAT was wrong?

IN YOUR OPINION, would she have asked why they did not print anything about the Arnold allegations?

I'm not lawyer, a political consultant, or a journalist, but from both a legal, political, and journalistic standpoint the Times is out to lunch here. As for Stewart, she does have an ax to grind, but the proof is in the pudding. Gray, from his perch as Governor, Lieut Gov, Chief of Staff, or whatever clearly had/has a higher obligation to not physically harass than did Ahnuld, actor on a movie set. Furthermore, there's enough detail in Stewart's reporting to easily debunk her reports in detail if in fact they could be. Others on staff with Davis or in the vicinity apparently confirmed the shaking, throwing, and out of control mental and physical harassment by Gray. Finally, from a political standpoint, my wild assed non PC guess confirmed by my wife and neighbors is that your average 40 yo soccer mom would a hell of a lot rather be groped/"insulted" by Ahnuld than spend one minute in the company of our outgoing Guv.

I think though there are more options, like not being groped by Arnold OR being yelled at or insulted by Davis or be in his company. They are both wrong neither is okay and both irresponsible. Just like the TIMES and STEWART are both irresponsible in their reporting.

No one has come forward and said the TIMES lied about Arnold either, but the timing and the use of some anonymous sources is irresponsible.

Same with Stewart's use of a longtime, well respected Timesian. Just what is that? How long is longtime? Is well respected someone who five people likes? 10 people? maybe it is someone who gets lots of smiles at the water cooler. These and other things, including info lacking in both stories as well as Carroll's efforts to convince the public that the story was above board casts a shadow on BOTH sides.

The discussion of Jill Stewart’s internet hissy fit over the Times’s open contempt for her “journalism” seems to have turned back to the issue of her accusations and whether they hold any water. Shall we look over the ones made in the original article, the one published in New Times during the Democratic primary when Davis ran for his first term? Of course, we’re going to apply common journalistic standards here, which will no doubt upset some, but here we go.

Stewart makes a number of charges, beginning with the general and becoming more specific.

1. “I have this file, labeled Gray Davis, that for the last few years I've been stuffing with all the bizarre little tales that are quietly shared among journalists and political insiders about the man who, though probably viewed as a blandly pleasant talking head by most Californians, is in fact one of the strangest ducks ever elected to statewide office.”

Which journalists and political insiders? A Republican insider would have nothing to lose by revealing his identity and telling a story at Davis’s expense. Yet no names are mentioned. Additionally, the phrase “stuffing with all the bizarre little tales” implies a whole host of stories will be forthcoming. Yet, only two finally emerge.

2. Stories about Davis’s verbal and physical abuse have been “[l]ong protected by editors at the Los Angeles Times--who have nixed every story Times reporters have ever tried to develop about Davis's storied history of physical violence, unhinged hysteria and gross profanity.”

What editors? What reporters? What stories? Empty accusations, not a whiff of evidence.

3. “His violent tantrums have occurred throughout his career, from his days as Chief of Staff for Jerry Brown to his long stint as State Controller to his current job.”

Another unfulfilled promise of many tales to come.

4. “Davis's hurling of phones and ashtrays at quaking government employees and his numerous incidents of personally shoving and shaking horrified workers--usually while screaming the f-word "with more venom than Nixon" as one former staffer recently reminded me--bespeak a man who cannot be trust with power.”

Stewart will provide no backed-up – or unbacked-up – stories of hurled phones and ashtrays in this piece, leaving an ugly, empty insinuation in the reader’s mind.

5. “"I guess Gray's biggest lie," says his former staffer who notes he often flies into a rage, "is pretending that he operates within the bounds of normalcy, which is not true. This is not a normal person. I will never forget the day he physically attacked me, because even though I knew he had done it before to many others, you always want to assume that Gray would never do it to you or that he has finally gotten help."
…A major funding source had dried up. Recalls the former staffer: "He just went into one of his rants of, 'F*** the f***ing f***, f***, f***!'" I can still hear his screams ringing in my ears. When I stood up to insist that he not talk to me that way, he grabbed me by the shoulders and shook me until my teeth rattled. I was so stunned I said, 'Good God, Gray! Stop and look at what you are doing!…' And he just could not stop."”

If true, this is a big story, because Davis has committed assault. But Stewart provides no type of verification. When the Times ran the story about the women who accused Arnold of “groping” (which was in fact criminal assault in at least a few cases), they provided quotes from people – including divorced spouses and disinterested parties – who recalled being told of the different women’s complaints at the time they were said to have happened. Stewart doesn’t even provide that much corroboration. This is also an anonymous quote.

6. In the second and final account of Davis’s supposed temper tantrum, “The woman refuses to discuss the assault on her with the media, but has relayed much of the story to me through a close friend. On the day in question, State Controller Davis was raging over an employee's rearranging of framed artwork on his Los Angeles office walls. He stormed, red-faced, out of his office and violently shoved the woman, who we shall call K., out of his way. According to employees who were present, K. ran out clutching her purse, suffered an emotional breakdown, was briefly hospitalized at Cedars Sinai for a severe nervous dermatological reaction, and never returned to work again.
According to one close friend, K. refused to sue Davis, despite the advice of several friends, after a prominent Los Angeles attorney told her that Davis would ruin her. According to one state official. K. was allowed to continue her work under Davis from her home "because she refused to work in Davis's presence."”

Stewart tries to minimize it, but she is passing along a second-hand story. Again anonymous. Again with no corroboration. And what kind of prominent attorney would advise a potential client that the State Controller – any State Controller – could ruin her or anyone else for that matter? Of course, it may never have happened because this is apparently yet another second hand story.

OK, now let’s move on from Stewart’s original New Times piece to her recent attack on John Carroll, the one motivated by the Times’s editor vigorous defense of his paper’s straightforward investigation of Arnold’s “woman problem.”

Stewart spends some time playing word games, insisting that Carroll wasn’t directly answering her charge:

“First, Carroll made a phony claim on Sunday so he could knock it down, writing, "it was written that the paper failed to follow up on reports that Davis had mistreated women in his office." Hey, John Carroll, I wrote precisely the opposite. I clearly wrote, in a special column for the Daily News of Los Angeles, Long Beach Press-Telegram and Ventura County Reporter, that the Times did follow-up on the alleged mistreatment, and that I crossed paths with their reporters while I too investigated the story. But the Times never published any articles---while I did publish my findings about Davis' secret personality, in New Times Los Angeles in 1997 and 1998.

“Here's the full, phony, Carroll paragraph: "It was written that the paper failed to follow up on reports that Davis had mistreated women in his office. Fact: Virginia Ellis, a recent Pulitzer Prize finalist, and other Times reporters investigated this twice. Their finding both times: The discernible facts didn't support a story."”

Then she gets worked up about the word “discernible”:

“Besides his gross inaccuracy, check out that last sentence about discernible facts. It is meaningless doubletalk. A California state bureaucrat might as well have written it.”

There’s an awful lot of heat here, but not much light. Carroll says he was accused of not following up a story; Stewart say she accused him of not publishing it. OK. Then, Stewart’s problems focus on the word “discernible.” It means detectable. There were no detectable facts. But I think that’s a simple case of misdirection anyway. Stewart is afraid of the word “facts.” There were no detectable FACTS.

Having surrounded that issue with haze, Stewart aims her smoke machine at the next one.

“Carroll was not employed by the Times back then. Maybe this is why he fails to mention the reason one of the reporters gave me, when I called in the late 1990s to find out why the story on Davis' bizarre dual personality never ran. The reporter told me Times editors dropped further pursuit of Davis' office violence because the Times editors were opposed to attacking major political figures using anonymous sources. Obviously, things have changed. At least for one side of the political aisle.”

Maybe. Maybe not. Probably not. Stewart is being disingenuous here. Most of the major newspapers are opposed to attacking major political figures using ONLY anonymous sources. According to Stewart, “the reporter” she talked to didn’t say only. What reporter? How do we know he said that? How do we know he got it right? Why doesn’t Stewart simply produce the LA Times style book, which would have the rules for such reporting in it? Also, nice job of castigating the Times for using anonymous sources by using anonymous sources.

Then comes this last bit, which is just out-and-out rhetorical underhandedness.

“Moreover, Carroll focuses only on attacks by Davis reported in New Times Los Angeles in the late 1990s. Why didn't the Times do a Schwarzenegger-style probe of earlier Davis bad behavior and much more recent Davis bad behavior? For example: how about the widely rumored violent fit Davis threw on election night in November, 2002 at the Century Plaza Hotel, which got a lot of airtime in the Bay Area this year when a radio talk show in San Francisco went public with it?

“As a guest on the Oct. 12 edition of CNN's "Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz," I pointed out that the Times never published a word on that reported Davis meltdown. A Times editor based in Washington, D.C. insisted the Los Angeles office checked out the story---that Gray Davis destroyed a TV set---and found nothing. Naturally, they'll forgive me at the Times for doubting that they did a Schwarzenegger-level scouring. But maybe the discernible facts didn't support a story. “

Stewart charges that Carroll doesn’t say they investigated the 2002 charges. Well, no, maybe not, but another editor “insisted” (not “said,” but “insisted,” no doubt under Stewart’s withering inquisition) that the Times did check out the “TV set” story (and frankly, big deal). She doubts it and that’s her right, but she’s hardly in a position to offer a reasoned judgment.

From the article:

"According to employees who were present, K. ran out clutching her purse, suffered an emotional breakdown, was briefly hospitalized at Cedars Sinai for a severe nervous dermatological reaction, and never returned to work again.

"According to one close friend, K. refused to sue Davis, despite the advice of several friends, after a prominent Los Angeles attorney told her that Davis would ruin her. According to one state official, K. was allowed to continue her work under Davis from her home 'because she refused to work in Davis's presence.'

"Checchi's campaign should get a copy of the tape recording Davis left on K.'s home telephone, in which he offers no apology to K. but simply requests that she return to work, saying, "You know how I am.'"

Let's see: employees (plural); a close friend; a state official; and a tape recording. I think it's not quite accurate to claim that there is "no corroboration." Maybe the corroboration was anonymous -- so was much of the corroboration of the allegations in the Arnold hit piece.

Also: sorry expat, but your smoke and haze analogies don't fit Stewart's language, but rather Carroll's. I know you think phrases like "no discernible facts" and "it didn't check out" are the height of clear talk and specificity; I don't.

Plus, this is by far not the only allegation that Carroll misstated. He exaggerated about three of the major four allegations. (See http://patterico.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_patterico_archive.html#106597087399833733 for details.) Perhaps Carroll didn't read the stories containing the criticisms?

Stewart's allegation is that the Davis stories were never printed because the paper wouldn't print stories against major political figures using anonymous sources. This allegation may be wrong, but it is pretty specific. Responding by saying "It didn't check out" -- well, that just doesn't check out.

Her comments on the TV set deal are speculation; however, I read the transcript, and McManus is as vague as Carroll was about why the story didn't check out.

Expat does make some good points, though: the stories appear to be second-hand; there should be more details regarding the origin and nature of the allegations of hurling phones/ashtrays.

I have always said that Stewart's stories, relying as they do on anonymous sources, need to be read with a close eye. Expat, I think some of your criticism is fair; other of your criticism I think is not (as I have detailed above).

One more thing to expat:

You say that Arnold's groping "was in fact criminal assault in at least a few cases." The "in fact" part is, you will no doubt agree on reflection, overstated, as no criminal charges were ever filed, much less proved. I agree that, if the so-called groping allegations are true, they arguably could have constituted misdemeanor conduct if the victims had bothered to file charges; the same holds true of the certain of the alleged Davis conduct.

By now we're all familiar with Patterico's little reading comprehension problem, so no surprise at the response.

It was K's friend who told Stewart about the so-called employees' report, so we're still in second-hand story land. There is no independent confirmation by state employees and Stewart carefully avoids saying she personally spoke to any. I already mentioned the "close friend" who mentioned the sue/not sue bit -- yet again, a second hand report (Patterico, can you get someone to read this stuff to you?)

This may come as a big surprise to some, but responsible journalists, the ones who work at big daily newspapers and have to run their stories by editors, don't go into print with second-hand stories.

If you find an official's confirmation that a state employee is working at home because she doesn't want to work with Davis and an answering machine recording of Davis asking her to return to work and saying "You know how I am" as being of sufficient significance to prove anything, well, how's the Easter Bunny treating you?

Your refrain that you don't understand the phrases "it didn't check out" and "no discernible facts" pretty much speaks for itself. Can you read street signs?

It's nice, though, for you to tip your hand, equating -- even partially -- Stewart's shrill polemics with the backed-up stories reported by the Times.

The Times presents all the evidence it has and leaves it to its readers to make up their own minds. Stewart offers no evidence at all, but tries to badger readers and listeners into swallowing her drivel whole. And woe to those who contradict her, for they are part of the evil forces out to silence her.

I know for many people, the Times is a big hairy ogre. They can't live with the fact that a first-class newspaper that's respected all around the world is reporting news that they don't like and not reporting stories that they wish were true -- and could very well be true. Well, guess what: Arnold committed assault on women that in his mind were beneath him in social status. All the Times did was report the facts. And when the paper got a tip that Davis was assaulting his own employees, editors and reporters tried to get the story but couldn't find enough witnesses to back it up. Boo-hoo. Get over it.

Good heavens. I just read my own posts and realized that Patterico either completely misrepresented what I wrote or, let's be kind, was unable to take it all in. The result is that, despite being all innocence himself, he looks like he's playing dirty rhetorical tricks. I can no longer in good conscience be the occasion of making such a paragon of virtue look so underhanded. So I bid you all adieu, for good this time. I can't stand the disingenuous, you see.

Good heavens indeed. Here I thought that we had seen the last of expat's personal attacks on me of the type peppering the related comment thread (http://www.kevinroderick.com/scgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=799). If you read that other thread, you will also notice that it is a tactic of his to hurl insults and then announce that he will no longer participate in the thread.

Expat likes to think that he has shown me to be underhanded, but he has only shown himself to be someone who prefers insult to argument, and who interprets the written word a little strangely himself.

As usual, I will do my best to ignore the ad hominems and simply address the issues:

Stewart's 1997 piece is replicated here: http://windsofchange.net/archives/004099.html. It cannot reasonably be read as expat reads it, his vaunted perception of his reading skills notwithstanding. Stewart uses phrases such as "According to employees who were present," "According to one close friend," and "According to one state official" -- indicating to me that she *herself* talked to the people.

How could it be read otherwise?? To read it expat's way, that everything comes through K.'s friend and Stewart talked to nobody else, certain paragraphs would read very strangely indeed. For example, K's friend would have to have said to Stewart something like this:

"K. told me that Davis violently shoved her. Then, according to employees who were present at the time, she then ran out of the room clutching her purse."

That sounds silly, and it is a ridiculous way to read the piece.

In the other thread we already hashed out my contention that "it didn't check out" doesn't answer Stewart's specific charges, but rather is a code phrase meaning "Trust us." I would rather see a specific description of the applicable standards and how they were applied to both stories. Expat loves to imply that I can't understand English because I find these sorts of phrases to be infuriatingly vague and lacking in content.

I will repeat again that Stewart's pieces leave much to be desired in the way of sourcing and specificity, but I find they inspire curiosity as to whether and to what extent they are true.

It still comes down to a major newspaper using it's front page as an op-ed billboard. The Times has outdone itself over and over with one sided liberal reporting that ignores facts to present a socialist point of view. Sad that it is the "best" Los Angeles has. Bring back the Herald.

Is it one sided reporting that bothers you or one sided LIBERAL reporting? They are not the same thing.

Honestly the TIMES lacks a lot of credibility on many stories but when you become the paper of record or the reporter to read. People stop questioning. If you use anonymous sources, they are NOT supposed to be anonymous from your bosses. Did Stewart tell the editors who run her column who the LONG TIME, RESPECTED (No one stil has defined what that means) Timesian is?

I see Stewart and the Times as the same, both with a bias, both one sided and both with an ax to grind.