LA TIMES - THE SELF-JUSTIFYING DEFENSE

LA Times ^ | October 11, 2003 | John S. Carroll, Los Angeles Times Editor

[publius1]

How The Times decided to publish the accounts of 16 women who said they had been sexually mistreated and humiliated by Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The volcanic passions of the recall are largely spent, though we'll no doubt be feeling their effects for many years. Today, on this Sunday of relative calm, I'd like to tell you how the Los Angeles Times decided to publish the stories of 16 women who said they had been sexually mistreated and humiliated by Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[publius1]

This is part of their version of the story behind the story? Aren't they good? Aren't they wonderful? Aren't they moral and ethical beyond words?

You have to read the whole thing to understand what giants they are!!!

Puh-leaze

[Support Free Republic]

The Free Republic Lifeform

"... This is a wonderful description of what Free Republic really is. It is a living and evolving Life Form to battle the left wingers and those who would destroy this country!

The Free Republic Life Form enables us to discover the truth about what is happening. We can avoid the spin of the major mediots as they work 24/7 to weaken this country. We come to the Free Republic Life Form to find the truth! ...

Free Republic needs a constant infusion of cash to keep the Free Republic Life Form alive, viable and to grow. If we believe in Free Republic, we must donate each month or quarterly to keep this incredible life form alive...

Good stewardship is what this world needs, not good intentions. Good conservative stewards will insure that the Free Republic Life Form continues to grow, be viable and thrives!"

Thank You for your support!

Click The Logo To Donate

Or mail checks to

FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

[freedomlover]

At the risk of offending still more readers, I'll say that if you're put off by investigative reporting, this probably won't be the right newspaper for you in the years to come.

With all due respect this deserved a HURL ALERT

[publius1]

You're right; I should have included that in the headline, and not in my sarcastic comments...

I was so incensed by this idiocy that I posted without thinking about anything but my anger. I'll do better next time.

[jmaroneps37]

This is such typical rat media bull shiite. What they are saying amounts to THEM putting THEIR hands over THEIR eyes and telling US that WE can't see THEM!
These bums are losers. They know it; we know it. This lam crap was published so it would hit the streets on a Saturday. That way they can say they defended themselves and not have too many people read it. The dopes that do read them will accept this if it was printed in Greek.

[Cicero]

Just checking whether this excerpt from the article may be too long for the legal agreement with the LA Times. Usually the excerpt posted here is smaller, but I don't know what length is permitted.

Yes, it's pretty sickening. As the saying goes, butter wouldn't melt in John S. Carroll's mouth.

[I still care]

I believe this no more than I believe the story that Fox news just "happened" on the story of Bush arrested for drunk driving 4 days before the election. (You know, that info was just sitting in that office for the LONGEST time, and that Democrat delegate just HAPPENED to mention it in front of that reporter.)

As far as I am concerned this type of reporting is unethical. It's like dropping a bomb without allowing someone time to respond.

[YaYa123]

I"m not about to give the LATimes a click so someone will have to tell me if Johnson discloses when the reporters turned in their story, and after they did, just how long the editorial process took.

[publius1]

Sorry if I crossed a line--hope not! The whole bloated self-regarding ego-trip was so long that it's hard to do it justice without a long excerpt.

[South40]

Caca de toro.

[Brilliant]

The entire top management should be fired, as well as the most far left reporters.

[publius1]

Here's what they say:

"A critic has claimed that The Times actually finished the Schwarzenegger story long before the election.

"They had the story done two weeks ago," this critic said on national television. "And they should have published it when it was ready to go...."

The statement was, as the old editor's saying goes, "a good story, if true."

From our files, here is what really happened: On Sept. 15, a federal court ordered the election postponed. (The order was later reversed.) The next day at 1:35 p.m., I sent the following e-mail to the reporters working on the story:

"Yesterday, when we discussed your stories, I was concerned about the brief time frame we have for getting them reported and into the paper. The subsequent decision to postpone the election shouldn't be seen as a reason to slow down.

"The information you're seeking, if verified, ought to be known by the voters before election day, not after. It's quite possible that the election will be held as originally scheduled, so please press ahead at full speed."

That was 16 days before the story was published. Does it sound as if we were sitting on it?

This critic's accusation was among several lulus cranked out by local journalists."



-- I'm assuming their reporters must have been taking a lot of coffee breaks. Also note: Carroll wants us to take a lot on faith, to believe that something is true just because he says it. He can say it, but how do we know it's true? Isn't this the guy who included charges from four anonymous unsourced women in the story? How can we trust him?

[Lexington Green]

Baloney! These are weasel words by propagandists who are denying that they're propagandists.

[publius1]

Wait, I didn't even get to the best part. Read this:

"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."


-- Is there a category on Free Republic for "Bite me, clown"?

[zlala]

Is there a category on Free Republic for "Bite me, clown

LOL
If so, I want to be on that ping list!

[demlosers]

I'll begin this accounting with a bit of background: One of our goals is to do more investigative reporting. At the risk of offending still more readers, I'll say that if you're put off by investigative reporting, this probably won't be the right newspaper for you in the years to come.

Being an investigative newspaper is fine and dandy, BUT you guys sure didn't do any investigative reporting on Grey-out Davis. Where were you then... Hmmmmmmm?

I'd say its more selective reporting based on politics.

[Hebrews 11:6]

Here is the letter I sent earlier to Mr. Carroll:

Dear Mr. Carroll:

Congratulations for accomplishing what your predecessors did not! You threw open the door, turned on the spotlight, and outed your Painted Lady in her queer embrace of the liberal Democrats/Socialists/Atheists.

In so doing, you have utterly destroyed the Times’ ability for several future decades to be taken seriously by, or even just get a date with, anyone. Conservatives and all Republicans everywhere are distinctly in your debt, sir, for so emasculating what was once a mighty stealth member of the California Democratic establishment. Keep up the good work!

By the way, are you sure you’re not really pimping for the Republicans?

With admiration for a job well done, (signature)

[M Kehoe]

I didn't think much of Mr. Carroll and his paper before. So, I really can't think anything less of them now.

Funny, how I don't think his intent writting this article was to have people like them less.

5.56mm

[martin_fierro]

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Actually, I would think the whole article would be fair use in this instance. Why? Because the LA Times has committed what used to be a cardinal sin of newspaper reportage -- becoming the news item itself. By doing that, everything they say on this subject should fall under "fair use."

Jim, FR may not want to push the envelope on this on its own. But I think it's a strong point in our favor.

A better solution would be for FR to seek permission from the LAT to publish this and things on the subject here -- in full.

If they don't agree, you can come back and tell us of their cowardice.