Defending the Indefensible [Hugh Hewitt: L.A. Times strikes back at its critics] - FR mentioned!

www.weeklystandard.com ^ | October 16, 2003 | Hugh Hewitt

[RonDog]

Defending the Indefensible
The Los Angeles Times strikes back at its critics, and gets rung up by the blogosphere (again).

by Hugh Hewitt
10/16/2003 12:00:00 AM

Hugh Hewitt, contributing writer

LIKE MOST CALIFORNIANS, I am sick of discussing the Los Angeles Times.

I had intended to write this week about the sudden crystallization of the Democratic party around the campaign theme "Higher Taxes, Lower Defenses." This combination of Mondale economics with McGovernite foreign policy is without precedent in American political history and deserves close examination. The appearances of Joe Biden and Jay Rockefeller on the weekend talk shows presented even more opportunities to ruminate on the collapse of coherence within Democratic ranks.

But the Times keeps asking for more. Over 1,000 subscribers have cancelled the paper since the Times joined up with Team Davis in the recall, and at least one advertiser dropped planned ads. Perhaps all of this explains why editor John Carroll felt obliged to try and make a stand in defense of his paper.

Carroll's strange piece ran in Sunday's paper but was available online Saturday, and I blogged a response on Saturday. Now Jill Stewart has not only smashed up Carroll's arguments, but also produced some pretty devastating reporting on the Times's agenda journalism. More criticisms of Carroll will follow since the Times has launched a huge debate on the collapse of newsroom ethics and the ideological imbalance of editorial staffs. (President Bush even entered the debate this week by pointing out the elite media's mishandling of the Iraq reconstruction effort.)

The core problem is that within elite media there is an overwhelming bias towards the Democratic party. That bias manifests itself in a 100 different ways. (For example, someone with some time ought to look at the Times's polling efforts in the past three months.)

The left-leaning newsroom isn't going to be corrected by editors sending memos, but by market forces feeding on the Internet's destruction of the oligopoly in news distribution. Stewart pens her article, I link to it here, it's then blogged by folks who never visit her site, and it gets posted and chewed over at various bulletin boards everywhere from FreeRepublic to DemocraticUnderground. The Times can neither make the story go away nor spin it because opinion elites no longer depend upon news elites to set the table. They can order in.

WHICH LEADS TO some big, unanswered questions. What is the Times's standard on allegations of sexual misconduct against candidates and elected officials? Do all anonymous complaints get treated the same way? Is there any way to reconcile the paper's treatment of Bill Clinton and Arnold Schwarzenegger? Is there any statute of limitations, and if not, given Clinton's continued visibility and influence within the Democratic party, will the Times be expanding its coverage of his lifestyle, past and present?

And what about the 2004 election? How is the Times planning to cover Barbara Boxer's reelection bid? And the Democratic presidential candidates? Are they playing under Arnold rules or Bill/Gray rules?

The Times has provided a useful glimpse into the operations of the hit-piece agenda journalism that defines today's newsroom. The blogosphere is the antidote. That and the availability of USA Today on a driveway near your front door.

Choice is the answer, and people are choosing not to read the Los Angeles Times.

Hugh Hewitt is the host of The Hugh Hewitt Show, a nationally syndicated radio talkshow, and a contributing writer to The Daily Standard. His new book, In, But Not Of, has just been published by Thomas Nelson.

[RonDog]

ping

[RonDog]

"...The left-leaning newsroom isn't going to be corrected by editors sending memos, but by market forces feeding on the Internet's destruction of the oligopoly in news distribution.

Stewart pens her article, I link to it here, it's then blogged by folks who never visit her site, and it gets posted and chewed over at various bulletin boards everywhere from FreeRepublic to DemocraticUnderground.

The Times can neither make the story go away nor spin it because opinion elites no longer depend upon news elites to set the table..." - Hugh Hewitt

.

If you listen to Hugh Hewitt, or read his WND commentaries,
this PING list is for YOU!
Please post your comments, and BUMP!

(If you want OFF - or ON - my "Hugh Hewitt PING list" - please let me know)

[freeangel]

But is the Times even clean enough to be used as toilet paper?

[RonDog]

PART ONE from today's www.hughhewitt.com:

Posted at 1:59 PM, Pacific

I have invited pastor, theologian and author Mark Roberts to be my guest today to discuss truth in the text of political campaigns. I had recommended his new book to my audience a couple of weeks ago, and many of you have in fact read it and found it enormously challenging.

Now his visit coincides with the decision of the Los Angeles Times to launch an attack on General Boykin. The Times' story this morning is a thinly disguised demand that evangelical Christians not speak about their faith. This will be a prime subject with Dr. Roberts.

Many of you are emailing me your thoughts on this morning's article attacking General Boykin. I suggest you forward them as well to john.carroll@latimes.com and the Chairman of the Tribune Company, John Madigan.

It is important that people who respect General Boykin's service express support for him to the Department of Defense.

[RonDog]

PART TWO from www.hughhewitt.com:

October 16, 2003

Posted at 3:00 PM, Pacific

The story behind the Times' story this morning is quite odd.  In the Richard T. Cooper piece on the Times' front page it is stated that "Audio and videotapes of Boykin's appearances before religious groups over the last two years were obtained exclusively by NBC News, which reported on them Wednesday night on the 'Nightly News with Tom Brokaw.'"  This is clearly intended to convey the idea that the story is derivitive of the NBC reporting.

An MSNBC story on the General tells the story differently:"NBC News military analyst Bill Arkin, who's been investigating Boykin for the Los Angeles Times, says the general casts the war on terror as a religious war."

I interviewed Arkin today and discovered that he developed the story on his own initiative as a columnist for the Times, and he decided with the full knowledge and approval of editors at the Los Angeles Times to provide NBC News with the story so that NBC could run the story before the paper ran Arkin's op-ed and the front-page story.  He stated that the idea was to get the story some pop by using the audio and video. 

The Los Angeles Times thus gave away a scoop on a story that ended up on its front page.  Why would it do that?  It may have a precedent in the world of journalism, but to me it stinks.  Didn't the Times engage in manipulation of the news to increase its impact on the audience?  Or did the paper need cover for the story and gave it to NBC in order to generate that cover:

Arkin:  "It was all coordinated, and I think that NBC's contribution was really its ability to showcase the video and audio of General Boykin which I think is much more powerful than anything I could put into words on paper."

Hewitt: "So the Los Angeles Times agreed to let NBC go first?"

Arkin: "Yes."

Arkin went on to tell me that when he began to investigate Boykin, a source within the Pentagon tipped him to the General's religious beliefs.  He would not disclose whether the source was a civilian or military.I asked Arkin about the line that appears in his story: "Boykin is also in a senior Pentagon policymaking position, and its a serious mistake to allow a man who believes in a Christian 'jihad' to hold such a job."

Arkin admits in my interview that Boykin never used the word jihad, even though it appears in quotes in his article.  Arkin states it is a characterization.  Right.  In quotes.

Now the key questions involve the transcripts of the talks General Boykin gave.  I don't trust Arkin, The Times, or NBC to have accurately portrayed tyhe General's remarks.  Arkin has agreed to make them available to me and I have sent him an e-mail with the request.  The Times and NBC have an obligation to obtain and publish the complete transcripts.  The Times must also publish a correction on the use of the word "jihad" in quotes.  Arkin's next editor should be warned as well.

Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island has expressed alarm at the reports of Boykin's comments, saying that if the reports are "accurate, to me it's deplorable."  You can express support for General Boykin to Senator Chafee via the Congressional switchboard at 202-225-3121.

[liberallarry]

Hugh Hewitt complains about the elite media...which is correct. The entire media, including the blogospher, talk radio, etc., now makes all views pretty much available to anyone who cares to look.

The elite media - meaning the leading newspapers and television networks - can fairly be criticized for having a liberal bias. But since people have readily available alternate sources the complaints lose their force. In our society people can choose their views and news sources can report as they see fit.

The lazy, stupid, ignorant, and blind get what they deserve.

[BurbankKarl]

I was IMing my buddy at lunch....500 layoffs at Sony Pictures, 1300 at Universal Music both announced the past day......while iTunes for the PC and the new Napster go online.

I just summed it up as "Less Clintonistas"

[mrsmith]

"bulletin boards everywhere from FreeRepublic to DemocraticUnderground. "
Gee, what did we ever do to him that he pairs us with such?

Do the "elite opinion makers" delude themselves into thinking web forums are all the same, or are they trying to delude others?

(Yeah, or he's just trying to be non-partisan.)

[Brad’s Gramma]

Choice is the answer, and people are choosing not to read the Los Angeles Times.

Ya got THAT right! Hey, LA TIMES...!!! The day that you gave me the free copy of your "paper"...the day AFTER the election? I threw it away. It felt SO good.

Oh, and the lady who laughed at the telemarketer and said no WAY would I subscribe? That was me.

[RobFromGa]

"bulletin boards everywhere from FreeRepublic to DemocraticUnderground. "

I took it as two ends of a wide spectrum rather than two peas in a pod.

[HateBill]

I e-mailed Carroll the following:

"I suppose in your perfect world, only atheists can be in foxholes."

[DoctorZIn]

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

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

[mrsmith]

OK: the spectrum between good and evil LOL!

Yeah, guess I'm being too hard on the guy. I thought I sniffed the idea of the blogosphere as an "opinion elite" in this.

Free Republic has put the kibosh to that media paradigm IMHO and I'd like to keep it that way.

[evilsmoker]

Stewart pens her article, I link to it here, it's then...

Give me a break -- he's taking credit for the story going national? This guy has way too high of an opinion of himself.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The Times can neither make the story go away nor spin it because opinion elites no longer depend upon news elites to set the table. They can order in.

The blogosphere is an almost pure realization of "freedom of the press." It's almost free to post your opinion in such a way that huge swaths of potential voters nationwide can--if they so choose read it.

The LA Times has freedom of the press, so they can print tendentious political tripe 'til the cows come home. And they can even claim that its political tripe is "objective." The only problem is the fact that we-the-people have other sources of political tripe, and we can evaluate those sources and decide what we believe without so much as a "by your leave" to The LA Times.

[ladyinred]

One of the reporters on the Times is from Fresno, and he was on our local talk radio yesterday trying to defend the paper's hit piece on Arnold. It was disgusting, and every caller was angry and skeptical of his defense. He denied that they were after Arnold and ignored the stories about Davis. It was pathetic.

When the host mentioned that 1000 people had cancelled the paper, he said, " That happens all of the time, and they'll get over it and start taking it again." The arrogance of that statement makes me hope that not only will they not start it again, but that more will tell them to shove it.

[shawnlaw]

His words are "bulletin boards everywhere from FreeRepublic to DemocraticUnderground. " which suggest to me a spectrum, i.e. Good (FR) through Bad (DU).

[alwaysconservative]

Good news: FR is listed in Hugh Hewitt's article.
Bad news: The DUmmies are also listed.

Of course, it may just be a new way of saying "from heaven all the way to hell". Heheheheheheheh.

[MeekOneGOP]