L.A. Observed

L.A. Times ^ | 05/22/03 | John Carroll

[What Is Ain't]

Memo on abortion and liberal bias by Los Angeles Times Editor John Carroll, May 22, 2003

To: SectionEds

Subject: Credibility/abortion

I'm concerned about the perception---and the occasional reality---that the Times is a liberal, "politically correct" newspaper. Generally speaking, this is an inaccurate view, but occasionally we prove our critics right. We did so today with the front-page story on the bill in Texas that would require abortion doctors to counsel patients that they may be risking breast cancer.

The apparent bias of the writer and/or the desk reveals itself in the third paragraph, which characterizes such bills in Texas and elsewhere as requiring "so-called counseling of patients." I don't think people on the anti-abortion side would consider it "so-called," a phrase that is loaded with derision.

The story makes a strong case that the link between abortion and breast cancer is widely discounted among researchers, but I wondered as I read it whether somewhere there might exist some credible scientist who believes in it.

Such a person makes no appearance in the story's lengthy passage about the scientific issue. We do quote one of the sponsors of the bill, noting that he "has a professional background in property management." Seldom will you read a cheaper shot than this. Why, if this is germane, wouldn't we point to legislators on the other side who are similarly bereft of scientific credentials?

It is not until the last three paragraphs of the story that we finally surface a professor of biology and endocrinology who believes the abortion/cancer connection is valid. But do we quote him as to why he believes this? No. We quote his political views.

Apparently the scientific argument for the anti-abortion side is so absurd that we don't need to waste our readers' time with it.

The reason I'm sending this note to all section editors is that I want everyone to understand how serious I am about purging all political bias from our coverage. We may happen to live in a political atmosphere that is suffused with liberal values (and is unreflective of the nation as a whole), but we are not going to push a liberal agenda in the news pages of the Times.

I'm no expert on abortion, but I know enough to believe that it presents a profound philosophical, religious and scientific question, and I respect people on both sides of the debate. A newspaper that is intelligent and fair-minded will do the same.

Let me know if you'd like to discuss this.

John

[Mr. Mojo]

Nothing short of incredible.

[dagnabbit]

Such management action may someday elevate that paper's best use from bird cage liner up to fish wrapper.

[DoughtyOne]

I do not believe the editors at the Times ever considered themselves to be as leftist as they are in reality. I honestly think they surround themselves with other idiotic liberals who echo their own views so much so, that they think everyone (or at least most people) think as they do.

This guy sounds as if he understands the problem on one issue. It remains to be seen if he will begin to recognize this problem in it's entirity. It's our job to politely point out to him the problems we see in his paper.

I don't think we should burry him with notes calling him all sorts of names. I think we should document other articles that do the same thing he has pointed out.

I also think we should ask valid questions like, "Why do you keep people like Paul Sherer on staff, when their views are so radical that they can't possibly be supported by more than 0.00005% of the populace at large?" Who are you trying to reach with such a fringe writer?

Perhaps we'll see a change at the Times. It must occur to them that it's strange that they can't sell more than 1 million papers in an area with a populace of 15 million.

[the lone wolf]

If "John" here keeps this up, he will be working for FNC in less that a year.

[Mister Baredog]

Memo on abortion and liberal bias by Los Angeles Times Editor John Carroll, May 22, 2003

Being a sort of newbie I don't know how to get this reposted to the top for further discussion, this one sneaked by a lot of commentary I know is out there, I would like more FReepers to be aware of this memo. Thanks in advance!