 
|
 |
|
Los Angeles Times editor John Carroll responds to the paper's critics in an unusual (and somewhat testy) commentary in Sunday's paper. Titled "The Story Behind the Story," Carroll writes that the paper decided on the day Schwarzenegger formally got in the race that it would have to check out the long-standing allegations of his crass treatment of women. Then the race to the wire was on.
We assigned the task of investigating Schwarzenegger's reputation to two veteran reporters: Robert Welkos, who has covered Hollywood for half of his 25 years on the paper, and Gary Cohn, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1998 for investigative reporting at the Baltimore Sun.They were joined by Carla Hall, a former Washington Post reporter who has covered news and features here for a decade, and many others, most notably Tracy Weber and Megan Garvey.
The undertaking was not easy. How do you find women who say they have been mistreated? How do you persuade them to talk? How do you determine whether they're telling the truth?
He goes into the mundane details of investigative reporting and getting reluctant sources to talk. Carroll says that claims the paper had finished the story and sat on it until closer to the election were lies -- "lulus cranked out by local journalists."
It was also written, for example, that Davis was the puppeteer behind the Times stories. Fact: None of the information in the Times stories came from the Davis camp, as we said in the articles when we published them.It was written that high Democratic officials were kept apprised of the newspaper's probe, step by step. Fact: No Democratic officials were apprised. Because the paper was interviewing many sources, the existence of the investigation was widely known, but the details were not. The Davis people may have learned that the investigation was underway from Web sites, which mentioned rumors about it repeatedly.
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...
[skip]
The electronic revolution has brought us many blessings, but it has also blindsided us with a tidal wave of pornography. In similar fashion, we are now getting a faceful of rotten journalism — journalistic pornography, actually — in which ratings are everything and truth is nothing.
He names no names, but part of that seems a response to local columnist Jill Stewart, who got a lot of national media bounce by claiming in the final hours of the campaign that the Times withheld evidence of mistreatment by Davis. Her evidence to me was weak to non-existent, and her biases glaring -- she hates the Times, and she was mad that her 1997 story got ignored by everybody. Carroll may also be speaking about Mickey Kaus, who speculated several times over a few weeks in Kausfiles (without offering evidence) that Carroll himself was delaying the stories. I remember thinking at the time that some people would think he knew something, even though Kaus might have just been playing his favorite role of, as he says, "controversialist."
Carroll closes by arguing that once the story was done, the paper had the choice whether to run it close to the election, hold the revelations until after Oct. 7, or spike them. Carroll says he has no regrets for the path chosen and says the stories are "solid as Gibraltar."
Are the stories significant? Some think they starkly illuminate the character of a man who has been elected to the highest office in California. Some don't. Our role is to serve citizens of varying views by examining the behavior and the policies of political leaders and publishing our findings.And when we publish, we do it in a timely fashion. Better, I say, to be surprised by your newspaper in October than to learn in November that your newspaper has betrayed you by withholding the truth.
The only surprise to me here is that Carroll felt he had to publicly respond. I'm glad he did. My position from the start, knowing how the paper works, was that the timing was not suspicious. It was a short campaign, and a difficult story to report and vet. If I were the editor, I'd have run the stories too, without any concern for whether they helped or hurt. (As it is, who knows what effect if any they had on the outcome. I'm pretty confident the reporters could not care less.) Carroll doesn't address any of the more general complaints about Times coverage of Schwarzenegger and the campaign, but this response -- and its tone -- will surely get talked about for a long time.
Ditto do David's coments above.
Posted by: Jacob Soboroff at October 11, 2003 05:51 PMThere were many holes in The Original Story and just as many in Carroll's sorry excuse for a response. I needn't go throught them here. Any thinking person that likes questions and answers would have problems with both of the papers offerings. I did read all of both...
Check http://www.hughhewitt.com/ - Oct 11th 03 at 5:55 PM posting - Don't expect real answers to real questions from the LAT.
And then there is the Wall St. Journal's Daniel Henninger who wanted so badly to paint Arnold as right of center http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB106574601716831600,00.html?mod=opinion%255Fmain%255Ffeatured%255Fstories%255Fhs that he started by saying that "more than seven million restless Californians voted to replace their governor."
And it was downhill from there.
A local freelance writer, 58, who asked that his identity be withheld, called John Carroll "a thin-skinned apologist for clearly biased reporting that neither begins nor ends with the Schwarzenegger coverage. It's not that Times writers skew to the left as much as that they're too dumb to avoid looking as though they do."
A student, 18, at a Santa Monica college, who asked not to be named, said. "That's for sure!"
A long-time Times reader, 45, who requested anonymity ("if my name got out, it might cost me my job"), told us, "When I heard Carroll was coming to The Times, I expected solid writing, and good reporting. Imagine my surprise and disappointment when I discovered that it wasn't the San Francisco Chronicle's Jon Carroll. Hell. at this point, I'd settle for Lewis Carroll...or Carroll Baker!"
Posted by: exherald at October 12, 2003 11:14 AMThe timing of the Times exposé is suspicious -- no matter how the pub date was arrived at.
But for many of us, the real problem is not that the sexual assault stories (which have been known for years) were published in the Times less than a week before the election, it is that the Arnold/Enron stories, and the stories of the plans to turbocharge electricity deregulation, and the stories of the plans to settle the lawsuits against the electricity privateers for pennies on the dollar were not covered at all by the Times, not during the campaign and not now. The Times is not the only culprit. Indeed, none of California's major media breathed a word about these things during the campaign, none of their reporters asked about them. This despite an intense level of contact with media outlets by citizens asking that they cover these issues.
Consequently, the public has been grossly disserved by the Times and other major media outlets, and the public made decisions without sufficient information.
It is a shameful reflection on the priorities of all major California media.
--felix
Posted by: felix19 at October 12, 2003 11:46 AMfelix19 reflects my sentiments. The Times' late hit, by itself, might have passed muster had the rest of their campaign coverage been unbiased and less-than-superficial. Remember, the Times blew off the serious stuff about the MEChA organization.
Ditto felix19's second allegation. California's media has done a really poor job on state issues. We need and deserve better, but I don't know where it will come from. Certainly not the LA Times.
Posted by: Dave Sheridan at October 12, 2003 07:39 PMfelix and Dave have it exactly right. The fact is that not only did Schwarznegger avoid stating his intentions but the media showed no interest in finding out what they might be,
Posted by: fyreflye at October 12, 2003 11:08 PMCarroll failed to address the most blatant and least professional - and also ongoing - of the Times' sins. The quadruplets of thought – Lopez, Morrison, King and Skelton – were the second greatest disgrace, next only to the blatant bile and nastiness of the front page. Day in and day out, questions and insinuations about Arnold. That would be fine, but were there the same things about Davis and Cruz. Somehow, in a state that went 55% to recall Davis, the Times couldn;t fund much bad to say about him.
Posted by: BobfromPlaya at October 12, 2003 11:19 PMAhnold's groping has been a story for some time, and it still is a story. It's quite amazing that the Times piece got Ahnold to admit he has behaved badly in the past, almost inviting a civil action against himself in the process.
BTW, why all this handwringing when a Republican comes under some sort of scrutiny, while Dems get drawn and quartered for lesser offenses? Maybe I should just throw in the towel, sign on with the right-wing, and thereby get my get-out-of-jail-free card, my copy of Mein Kampf and my lifetime supply of Oxycontin...Should I run for office and some reporter write a story about it, his or her paper will be deluged with subscription cancellations and speculations about the "timing" of the story. Ha-ha. Then I'll get in on a sympathy vote and be able to hold taxpayer-supported orgies on a regular basis. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Posted by: Conrad Marx at October 13, 2003 02:32 AMBob: Pull your head out of your ass. It took me 2.4 second to remember this piece by Skelton. And this was in the first week. If given longer I could find others:
Los Angeles Times
August 21, 2003 Thursday Home Edition
SECTION: California Metro; Part 2; Page 8; Metro Desk
LENGTH: 827 words
HEADLINE: The State;
George Skelton / CAPITOL JOURNAL;
Davis Falls Flat, While Schwarzenegger Connects
BYLINE: George Skelton
DATELINE: Sacramento
BODY:
Sacramento
This has been a bad week for Gov. Gray Davis. He gave his first major performance of the recall campaign. Then actor Arnold Schwarzenegger gave his.
Davis' was a dud.
Schwarzenegger's was Reaganesque.
The scary thing for Democrats is that Davis' performance may have been the best he can do.
I don't think so, but we may never find out. Why would TV stations ever again free up 20 minutes for a Davis pep rally?
This widely televised, news-hour speech, delivered before a friendly labor audience at UCLA on Tuesday, may have been Davis' best shot at appealing to viewers in their homes. And he blew it.
The speech was way too long -- for the stations giving freebie time and their viewers.
Worse, it lacked a badly needed mea culpa -- for initial indecisiveness in the energy and budget crises, and for obsessive money-grubbing from special interests.
Americans love to forgive, but they have to be asked. This doesn't count: "I know many of you feel that I was too slow to act during the energy crisis. I've got your message and I accept that criticism. I played the hand I was dealt as best I could. I inherited the energy deregulation scheme...."
Neither does this: "We made our share of mistakes. And like you, I wish I had known then all I know now."
Nor especially this: "I come here tonight to take responsibility, to set the record straight and to talk about the future."
Davis did not take responsibility, and he sure didn't talk much about the future. It was his chance to tell Californians how he'd govern differently and better if they'd allow him to serve out a second term. He should have proposed budgeting reforms to stabilize revenues and balance spending.
Instead, we got the promise of yet another "distinguished commission of knowledgeable people to propose changes." Here's a guy, remember, with "experience money can't buy." He should be brimming with reform ideas. If not, he could dust off a couple hundred forgotten studies.
There's no shortage of ideas around Sacramento. There's an urgent shortage of leadership.
But even worse than the lack of contrition and visionary content was the disconnect between words and body language.
My mind kept harking back to those great old Esquire magazine photos of a howling Richard Nixon with the caption, "Why is this man laughing?"
Davis would deliver fiery, emotional words -- they were "heartfelt," aides said -- followed by forced, plastic grins. He'd also do hand-chops and lead "no recall" chants like an orchestra conductor, but most distracting were those out-of-place grins.
Just one of many examples, followed by the big smile: "Make no mistake, I am going to fight this recall and the right-wing forces behind it. You can take that to the bank."
A viewer might ask: Which is to be believed? The fire or the mirth? Or neither?
You'd expect a star actor to communicate superbly with TV viewers and, I suspect, Schwarzenegger did in his first lengthy session with political reporters Wednesday.
Look, it's obvious that Schwarzenegger doesn't know beans about how state government works -- how the money flows in and where it goes. But voters already believe him -- as they did Ronald Reagan 37 years ago -- when he tells them the government isn't working very well.
He has celebrity magnetism that dominates the stage and attracts a huge audience. And he began to convey the notion to people that he may have some core beliefs about improving the business climate and rebuilding the state's infrastructure.
Sure, his promise to contract with "an outside auditing group" to examine Sacramento's books -- for how many millions? -- is a stall to avoid taking hard positions before election day. Moreover, this was grandstanding, because as governor, he could command the state number-crunchers to dig out anything he wanted.
He did take one crucial position by refusing to rule out a tax hike. He's against higher taxes "in principle," he asserted, "but I've learned never to say never."
What made Schwarzenegger's performance shine was how he -- a la Reagan -- articulated views that might not satisfy insiders and reporters, but could excite voters.
"The public doesn't care about figures," he said, evading a question about details. "They've heard figures for the last five years. What they want to know is, 'Are you tough enough to make the changes?' I'm tough enough."
Also: "I haven't made any deals with anyone. I haven't sold out to any special interest groups. I want to go up there with no baggage, totally independent."
Well, he'd still have to make deals. It's called putting together voter coalitions. Leading.
In a refreshing oddity, the rookie politician turned down a reporter's invitation to criticize Davis' speech, vowing: "I will never attack."
Schwarzenegger must realize something his GOP opponents apparently don't: It's a waste of time and money to attack Davis. He's his own worst enemy.
Not only was Skelton critical of Davis throughout the recall, but Lopez ragged on the governor frequently, too.
Posted by: expat at October 13, 2003 10:01 AMI don't trust the judgment of many of the liberals in the media in general, if only because too many of them don't even have the insight (or honesty) to admit their biases lean left. Instead they'll say something like, oh, no, we're not liberals----we're really progressives!! And how dare you claim we can't keep our biases from coloring the way we do our jobs.
However, John Carroll not long ago at least had enough objectivity to write a memo criticizing his reporters' biases towards issues like abortion. But I'd be surprised if he or the people around him would have made as much effort to push all the stories dealing with allegations about Schwarzenegger if they politically preferred him to Gray Davis. And certainly SOME of the women the Times' editors believed as having enough credibility to be included in articles about Schwarzenegger weren't any more credible than the people who made claims about Davis's abusive behavior.
Posted by: David at October 13, 2003 12:20 PMAll this criticism of the Times's failure to verify Jill Stewart's unproven allegations about Gray Davis overlook one salient point: There are plenty of conservative papers in California with signficant investigative resources (the OC Register has won 2 Pulitzers for investigative reporting in recent years). Why didn't they come up with any dirt on Davis?
Posted by: expat at October 13, 2003 03:28 PMThe Times' coverage of the recall was awful. Jill Stewart is entertaining, and right that the coverage was awful, but as usual her argument is shallow and derives most of its appeal from her prose and not her reasoning. Jill Stewart is only interesting because the Times, a bloated, corporate journalistic wasteland capable of generating controversey only from people who need to whip it up to support their own pathetic careers, is such an easy target.
Posted by: Ted at October 13, 2003 05:51 PMJill Stewart have responded to John Carroll's semi-response.
Posted by: BigFire at October 15, 2003 05:51 AM
of LA Observed
As usual, Kevin Roderick is right on it all. Carroll's missive shows that conspiracy theorists like Jill Stewart (what newspaper does she work for now) and Bill Bradley of the LA Weekly were dead wrong and totally partisan in their anti-Davis opining about the motives of everything in the LA Times. Someone should praise those journalists who stuck out their necks to keep a sane dialogue in this recall alive when it came to media coverage. Dan Weintraub, Nikke Finke, Warren Olney, the San Francisco Chronicle, Roderick, come to mind.
Posted by: David at October 11, 2003 04:00 PM