Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arnie's chat-show army
The Guardian ^ | October 20, 2003

Posted on 10/19/2003 7:21:46 PM PDT by John Jorsett

The LA Times thought it was doing its job when it revealed the sordid past of Arnold Schwarzenegger. But the public's response showed that they were not interested in the truth, writes Duncan Campbell

Monday October 20, 2003
The Guardian


When the Los Angeles Times published a front-page story five days before the California gubernatorial election about six women who claimed that they had been groped by Arnold Schwarzenegger, it caused outrage. However, the outrage was directed not at the governor-to-be for his treatment of women but at the newspaper for daring to print the allegations, even though Schwarzenegger has acknowledged that some of the incidents took place and has apologised for them.

More than 1,000 people have cancelled their subscriptions to the state's bestselling daily newspaper and commentators have lined up to berate it for running the story so close to the election. Such has been the level of attacks on the paper that its editor, John Carroll, has gone into print to defend the decision to run the revelations.

For people not familiar with the LA Times, which has always been overshadowed by its eastern rivals, the New York Times and the Washington Post, it is a far from sensationalist paper and its stories are presented in what, by British standards, is a fairly low-key fashion.

In its politics, the paper reflects the state as centrist Democrat - although its cartoonist, Michael Ramirez, is relentlessly right-wing. Editorially, the paper was strongly opposed to the recall of Governor Gray Davis from the start, arguing that it made a mockery of the electoral process.

There had been rumours for around two weeks that the LA Times was planning a big hit on Schwarzenegger. When it surfaced, with six women alleging that the actor had groped them in incidents starting in the 70s and continuing to 2000, the effect was immediate.

Initially, Schwarzenegger's team denied the claims and said that their candidate would have no comment. However, the actor decided to deal with them by saying that, while most of the claims were not true, there was "no smoke without fire". He had done things in the past that he had thought were "playful" and that he now realised were wrong, he said, and he wanted to apologise. Over the next few days, more women, 16 in total, came forward with similar claims, many of them agreeing to be named.

I was at three Schwarzenegger rallies in different parts of the state on the day that the story broke. The LA Times was attacked by speaker after speaker from the platform and there was fury that the story had appeared at all. Rumours began: that the LA Times had been fed the story by Davis campaign members, that it had deliberately sat on the story until the last minute, that it had suppressed equally damaging material about Davis and how he treated his office staff. These rumours were soon the currency of talk shows and television news discussions, so the story became whether the LA Times should have run the stories at all.

To British readers, much of this must seem odd. The idea that it is somehow untoward to publish unflattering material - provided it is true - about a candidate because it might affect his chances of being elected seems perverse.

John Carroll claims that his paper, not Schwarzenegger, is the victim of smear tactics, and says that the rumours about the paper's sources and motives had been spun on the internet and by television and radio talk-show hosts. "We are now getting a faceful of rotten journalism - journalistic pornography, actually - in which ratings are everything and truth is nothing." He explained that interviewing the many women who had made allegations, and corroborating their stories, had taken all the time up to publication date and the paper had not sat on the story to place a bomb under Schwarzenegger. Carroll says that the claims made about Davis and his staff had been investigated and did not stand up.

In fact, Scwhwarzenegger was given an easy time by almost all of the media. He announced his bid initially on NBC's Tonight Show to the chat-show host Jay Leno, and it was Leno who introduced the new governor at his victory rally. Schwarzenegger and his wife, Maria Shriver, who also works for NBC, were given an hour of soft questioning by Oprah Winfrey, in which the actor was able to tell the mainly female viewers that he brings his wife her morning coffee in bed. Even though he was the biggest campaign spender, with $18m (£11m) raised for a two-month campaign, he could not have bought that sort of publicity.

The stories that appeared in the British tabloid press about alleged love-children barely surfaced in the US. A report suggesting that he had had a meeting with Enron during the state's past energy crisis also received little play in California.

Almost every major daily paper in the state, including the LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee and Oakland Tribune, urged a vote against the recall. Their advice was ignored by a majority of the electorate, who instead followed the lead of the television and radio talk-show hosts. It has not only been the Democrats who have learned a painful lesson during the election.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: backfire; catrans; latimes; recallanalysis; smearcampaign
I notice this article manages to overlook Jill Stewart's article about the vendetta against Schwarzenegger that was behind the Time's hit pieces. Guess turning a blind eye to anything that torpedos its thesis is the Guardian's way of dealing with contrary viewpoints.
1 posted on 10/19/2003 7:21:46 PM PDT by John Jorsett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
its the guardian, you expect honesty from that paper on anything?

"For people not familiar with the LA Times, which has always been overshadowed by its eastern rivals, the New York Times and the Washington Post, it is a far from sensationalist paper and its stories are presented in what, by British standards, is a fairly low-key fashion. "

I mean come on..
2 posted on 10/19/2003 7:25:11 PM PDT by Pikamax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
'But the public's response showed that they were not interested in the truth, . . . '

Oh PUH-LEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZE!!!!

Crapola Alert!!!
3 posted on 10/19/2003 7:32:51 PM PDT by DustyMoment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment; Pikamax
In its politics, the paper reflects the state as centrist Democrat - although its cartoonist, Michael Ramirez, is relentlessly right-wing.

LOL. No bias here, folks.

4 posted on 10/19/2003 7:39:40 PM PDT by EllaMinnow (Life is too important to be taken seriously.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: redlipstick
LOL! That's what the Guardian calls liberals these days? Californians know better and the U.K press doesn't have a noggin' clue as to what really drove the recall in our state.
5 posted on 10/19/2003 8:19:31 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
So, the American voters were not interested in unfounded smears against a candidate... and the Guardian finds our political judgment appalling.

Toodles, Guardian... and regards to your monarch.
6 posted on 10/19/2003 9:13:27 PM PDT by Tamzee (...This tagline has been tested on animals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
I wasted fifteen minutes writing a letter to the editor to the Guardian. here it is:

Duncan Campbell in (Arnies chat-show army' 20 October 2003) fails to recognize the reason why Arnold Schwarzenegger became Governor of California during the state's first recall election. Californians were tired of the 'puke politics' during the recall campaign where one side just simply bashes their opponent to oblivion. People in my state wanted someone that would reach out to the middle not just the left wing fringe when Governor Davis approved any bill passed by Democratic activist groups.

Los Angeles is not fortunate as how the British have diverse and varied publications from the Guardian to the Telegraph. People in Southern California are stuck in a media monopoly for local news. There is a lack of balance to the news where they dismissed stories on Governor Davis. The Los Angeles Times was simply looking to fish for stories on Arnold and purposely placed the story to cause the most harm to his campaign. Investigative reporters Jill Stewart and Bill Bradley have trumped the Los Angeles Times in the recall election and the newspaper is deeply embarrassed.

There is a reason why the Los Angeles Times is reviled by its readership. Investigative reporting should be applauded because that is the duty of a journalist. However, selective reporting of the news will not gain the adoration from its readership. Southern Californians want journalism, not a rehash from The Sun.

Arnold is a celebrity and it is understandable that he used his main attribute to his advantage. Although voters wanted substance, he was the ultimate escape from Governor Davis's management of a huge budget deficit and a massive car tax increase. The recall would not been as successful if motorists did not have their taxes raised in such a dramatic way.


Matt Munson
Ontario, California
United States
7 posted on 10/19/2003 11:32:45 PM PDT by Munson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett
This post has been added to the… California In Transition- Must read Threads!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

8 posted on 10/20/2003 9:04:27 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson