For what its worth, I think Hewitt was a little out of line in labeling you a "cheerleader" for the LAT. Unlike Hugh who is/was an Ahnuld "cheerleader" your takes have been reasonably objective. And I agree with Hugh in substance re the LAT and their biases. Now, you do have a "bias" in favor of the Times, but that's not the same as cheerleading. However, Jill and Hugh and others are right re the merits of LAT's coverage and/or lack of it with respect to Davis.

For what it's worth, I have posted a critique of Carroll's defense at this link: http://patterico.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_patterico_archive.html#106597087399833733. My post has internal links to a number of other posts that have analyzed the coverage since the groping allegations were first made public. My basic point is that Carroll's defense responds to a number of strawman arguments that I haven't seen actually voiced anywhere, while failing to respond to the specifics of the most valid criticisms. I hope you find it interesting.

This nonsense about the vaporous "charges" against Davis has got to stop. Once again, why did not a single one of California's conservative, resource-rich newspapers (say, the OC Reg with its two Pulitizer Prizes for investigative journalism) come up with anything?

I don't know, and neither do you -- right?

Don't misunderstand me. My point is not that the Davis charges are true. I don't know whether they are. My point is that a specific accusation has been leveled at the Times by Jill Stewart: that the Times had the goods on Davis but spiked the story because the sources were anonymous.

This is a serious accusation, in light of the Arnold groping stories. To my knowledge, absolutely nobody at the Times has denied the specifics of Stewart's allegations about the Davis story; instead, they say vaguely that the story "didn't check out" or "there was no story there." Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but I have heard nobody at the Times say: Jill Stewart's information is wrong; we applied the same standards to the Davis story as the Arnold story; here are our specific standards (whatever they may be); the Davis story did not meet them and the Arnold story did.

Until these questions are answered with specificity (and it is looking like they never will be), nobody will know for sure how vaporous the Davis charges really were. Jill Stewart has made some very specific allegations. I'd like to see someone at the Times respond to them with equal specificity.

You must suffer from a complete lack of comprehension. You certainly have no idea how newspapers operate.

I'll bite. Rather than simply insulting me, can you explain how my criticism is not valid?

I don't claim any special knowledge of how newspapers operate, but I can tell when people are dodging specific criticisms. So far, Times personnel have dodged the specifics on this one. Feel free to show me wrong. And I'd personally appreciate it (and I bet others would too) if you would refrain from any personal attacks and just give us the facts as you see them. You may have something we'd like to hear.

I have to say that this caterwauling over stale charges made by a disgruntled writer who couldn't cover a fire if it broke out in her hat is one of the best shows on the internet.

Frankly, you do have me at a loss. I have no idea how to explain so simple a phrase as "didn't check out" to you. Let me try: It means that editors assigned reporters to look into the rumors, but they couldn't find anything substantial enough to put into print. It's plain and simple English.

As to the "sources were anonymous." Newspapers do not like to let sources of information remain anonymous when they are quoted in print, but they'll do it. But if someone provides information to a newspaper, he or she absolutely has to identify him or herself. I'm sure you would not wish it otherwise lest we be awash in Matt Drudge-like unethical sewage.

Now why don't you explain why it is that there's something sinister about the Times's lack of coverage of this non-issue when newspapers in San Diego, Orange County, San Jose, Sacramento and San Francisco have never come up with anything about it. Because any reporter who had such a big story "spiked" (so much fun to use insider jargon!) would make sure it ended up published somewhere, proof -- that's proof -- and all.

Actually, don't bother. The pseudo-parsing of straightforward statements issued by the Times is far more entertaining.

That's all from me, folks.

Sense some hostility from you regarding Jill Stewart.

For somebody who obviously has some newspaper experience (judging from the pride in being an insider that oozes from your post, and the utter contempt for any outsider who might dare second-guess a newspaper), you seem have some trouble saying things in simple English yourself. Rather, there is a lot of implication, innuendo, and clever talk. Not much else.

For instance, you imply, but do not say, that Jill Stewart's sources would not reveal their names even to her. If this is what you mean to say, come out and say it, dude! Simple English, right? Either you know or you don't. Either way, say so!

I keep asking the question in what sounds like simple English to me: is there some aspect of Jill Stewart's accusations that is not true? No Times representative that I have seen has denied her specific accusations regarding the Davis story. If you know otherwise, say so. Show us where. Back up your claims.

"Didn't check out" is vague, subjective, and tells us nothing. You could have anonymous sources on Davis, anonymous sources on Arnold, same level of corroboration, and some guy can still justify publishing one and not the other by saying it "didn't check out." In other words, trust us. Well, that's the problem -- Stewart's accusations (if true) give people reason *not* to trust the paper. It doesn't wash to say, in essence, trust us.

Don't even bother responding. I was hoping to get some real insight, and risked more arrogant dismissiveness of the OUTSIDER! to take a stab at learning some facts. Your latest post tells me what you're about. Don't think I'm gonna learn anything more here.

Patterico, the Times story that ran about Arnold's groping quoted at least one and possibly more women by name. I'm sure that made the Times editors more comfortable about running other similar allegations anonymously. With regard to the Davis story, my non-insider hunch is that even if they confirmed that the incident really happened, they couldn't find someone who was actually there who would go on the record saying they saw the tantrum.

Now ask yourself this: Why would the largest newspaper in California deliberately alienate a sitting governor with a anonymous story about him allegedly smashing a TV? They'd be stupid to do it. It's all cost-benefit analysis in the end and they would have decided that there was a lot more downside than upside to running such a story.

Mr. Ricey: please see my comment on the other thread. There is much more to this than one TV-smashing allegation.