The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.
Defensive
: Jay Rosen dissects LA Times Editor John Carroll’s odd defiant defense of his paper’s tabloidy 59th-minute expose of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s past.
My question: If what he did was so awful — and if no one had an agenda behind this — then why did they not all come forward years before?
The problem with what the LA Times did is that it falls right into the trap of politics by peccadillo. The voters didn’t give a damn. So why should the Times?
“tabloidy”? As I recall, most of the accusations against Arnold came from women who were quoted on the record. Isn’t the hallmark of tabloid journalism that it make wild accusations solely with anonymous sources? (See, e.g., Drudge.)
“why did they not all come forward years before?”
This is a bit naive, or disingenuous. What would have been the effect of these women coming forward before Arnold became a politician? (Although it is not clear from the context, I am assuming “they” in your question refers to the witnesses.) They would have been out of work, and Arnold would have not been touched. Is the LAT supposed to investigate all Hollywood scandals? (If so, this is particularly hard to square with your next point.)
“The voters didn’t give a damn. So why should the Times?”
Because the conduct the candidate was accused of was both reprehensible – by anyone’s standard – and a crime. Isn’t it reasonable anymore to assume that voters will be interested in a candidate’s history of criminal conduct? And, if the conduct was a yawn after Arnold became a candidate, then why should the LAT have investigated the charges before he was a candidate, when it was presumably of even less interest?
Why didn’t they come forward until now?
Maybe because… he wasn’t in danger of having real power until now?
My interest in Carroll’s defense of the situation is not so much in the story itself — going after it is legitamate, even if the timing can be questioned — but in Carroll’s response (and that of Doyle McManus on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” on Sunday) to Jill Stewart’s claim that the times sat on the Gray Davis physical abuse reports in 1997 (Stewart appeared on the show with McManus).
Both Carroll and McManus said the story was checked out and found to be “unsubstantiated” even though at least two women in the story by Stewart, inculding Davis’ secretary, were identified. Does this mean the Times found Davis’ female employees were lying about their assault claims?
If so, the paper should have been more specific on why they found these women to be unreliable in their statements, as compaired to the women the Times did not identify in the Schwarzenegger story, but whose claims they still found credible enough to publish. Failing to detail the problems with the claims against Davis makes it seem as though the Times is adopting a “take our word for it” attitude, which is not likely to change anybody’s mind about the situation.
I want the US media to be like pitbulls when engaging in investigative journalism. There are so many areas where we need to ‘shine the light’ and expose the crap.
However, I reserve my right as a reader to question a piece that reports on decades old groping a few days before an election. If you add the report the LA Times wouldn’t run, about Davis’ abusive behavior, to the timing of the groping report, it just smells bad. Smells like the LA Times wanted to torpedo Arnold.
I sometimes feel as if certain media types think the public is stupid. Maybe some in the media don’t think of us at all? Do they report just for themselves and others who agree with them?
John – do you have a link to the Davis story you are referring to? Just because women were named in the story doesn’t mean they were quoted as accusing Davis in the story – a very big difference.
And will someone explain why, if there was a real story against Davis going back to 1997, why didn’t any other news organizations pick it up? Does Fox News not have a bureau in CA?
The answer is obvious: there was no story.
i beleive this accusations were explored in a premiere magazine article several years ago.
I have but three observations on last-minute political scandal stories. First, investigative journalism is a desireable goal, and should be pursued, and the LA Times ought not to be condemned for that. Second, a paper’s release of highly damaging charges in an ongoing election campaign is not neutral (particularly in the last stages of the campaign), for it tends to shifts the votes of those readers who believe what they read until something else comes along to dissuade them of that impression, and late in the campaign the candidate who is so damaged might not have the time to find his rebuttal evidence or witnesses. Documents get filed away, discarded or lost, while copies cannot be retrieved easily; witnesses move away, or get married and change their names when they marry, etc. Third, if a “topic” is worthy of investigation for candidate X, why is it not worthy of investigation for candidate Y? I remember back in 1987, after Judge Bork had been “borked”, Judge Ginsberg was put forth, and sank under the charge of marijuana use at Harvard. This was a “hot” story; when it came out that then Tennessee Senator Al Gore, Jr. had smoked the weed at Harvard, the “hot” story became cold. Two questions: Why don’t more journalists do the 20 questions routine and broadcast/fax/mail/e-mail them to all candidates, with a reply deadline, and then put their answers on their electronic versions of their papers and wait for the snitches to come forward and expose the liars (open jounalism model)? Second, if there is such a thing as journalistic ethics, where do I find the written code of conduct? Lawyers have either the Code of Professional Responsibility, or the Model Code of Conduct, both of which are in written form. Please direct me to a site where I can check out or download the ethics policy followed by the LA Times.
Mithras:
Here is the latest column by Jill Stewart in response to Carroll’s Sunday L.A. Times piece and her appearance with McManus on “Reliable Sources.” The part about the Davis story is a few paragraphs down.
As to why Fox News wouldn’t pick it up, remember, in 1997 Gray Davis was only the Lt. Governor of the state — while it was acknowledged that he was a likely candidate for the open governor’s seat in 1998, he was well under the political radar of any major media outlet outside of California at that time. Maybe Fox’s KTTV in Los Angeles might have done a story, but like every other TV station in L.A., they didn’t have a Sacremento news bureau that would care about such a thing.
And since one of the allegations in the 1997 story is that Gray tossed a phone at the female staffer, that’s pretty much a defacto accusation that … well, that Gray tossed a phone at a female staffer. Not much ambiguity there (while in the case of the scretary’s nervous breakdown, there could be outside influences that contributed to the problem. The only outside infulences on the phone tossing incident would be if there was a poltergeist in Davis’ Sacremento office telekentically manipulating the belongings).
Stewart quotes an L.A. Times staffer in her new column about the mood in the newsroom pre-election. I won’t deny Jill has an axe to grind in this dust-up with the Times, but unless you believe she’s fabracating either the staffer and/or the quotes, it’s pretty damning stuff.