 |
|---|
| We're On A Mission From God |
| Help us make our 4th quarter fundraising goal in record time! |
Posted on 10/6/2003, 9:47:36 PM by InfamousAngryWhiteMale
I send an protest email the the LA Times last week regarding their slimey articles on Arnold. I received this email back today.
----------------------------------
Dear XXXXXXXXX,
Thank you for contacting us. I wanted to send you a note from the newsroom written by the readers' representative. Her comments reflect the editors' thinking on why that article appeared. I hope this information helps. Thank you.
Thank you for your comments, which I am including in a report to editors on what readers say about Times coverage. Let me address the concerns raised by most readers.
Regarding the necessity of printing the story at all: These allegations have been swirling around Mr. Schwarzenegger for years. Once he became a serious candidate for governor, the Times had to examine them; editors believe people have a right to know if these allegations were true. They also believe that voters ought to have the same information the newspaper has, and they should have it before election day, not after.
Some readers have questioned the anonymity of several of the women in the article. Anonymous sources were included in this article only after extensive interviewing of the women and others who could corroborate their accounts (and in fact, since the story has appeared, Mr. Schwarzenegger has acknowledged and apologized for his past behavior toward women). The Times is in the business of publishing significant information, not concealing it, and that's why the story ran.
The article was published five days before election day because that was the first day it was ready. That the story could not be published sooner reflects two factors: The uniquely short duration of this election campaign and difficulty of finding the women, interviewing them and corroborating their stories. Once Schwarzenegger announced in August, The Times assigned several reporters to look into the allegations, mindful that the election cycle was short. When the reporting was done, editors found themselves facing the prospect of publishing just before the election. They therefore faced the decision of either dropping the story because of the timing, or publishing it and letting the readers and voters make their own judgment.
Finally, The Times has also reported thoroughly on other candidates, pursuing leads that have come up in the course of investigating those individuals and publishing articles that include:
1. A major Sunday story delineating the full case against Governor Davis; extensive coverage of his campaign contributors and their links to government. 2. Disclosures that Arianna Huffington paid almost no state income taxes and that her campaign manager was a tobacco lobbyist. 3. Enterprising coverage of Bustamante's acceptance of Indian casino money; an examination of his campaign manager, Richie Ross, and his lobbying clients; an investigation of a piece of investment property Bustamante owns; an article on Bustamante's brother's problems. 4. An article on the religious beliefs of McClintock's deputy campaign manager, which were disavowed by McClintock; and reporting of his taxpayer-financed perks.
Again, I'm sorry you believe this story didn't belong in the Los Angeles Times, but I hope this goes some way toward explaining why editors thought it was both responsible and newsworthy.
Jamie Gold Readers' Representative
I'm going to reply back, but before I do I was hoping that some of you could give me a little help as to what my response should be.
|
|---|
| We're On A Mission From God |
| Help us make our 4th quarter fundraising goal in record time! |
Cancel your subscription.
Use your new FR screen-name. That should scare them, because everybody knows that InfamousAngryWhiteMales are dangerous. Just ask Chief Moose.
I would be curious to know why they could sling mud just a few days before elections, using unsubstanciated, unwitnessed and anonymous accusers; yet could not say anything about Gray Davis's abuse of women in his office. On the conservative side, we have un-named, unwitnessed accusations that are 30 years old, but on the DEM side, we have witnesses, victims and facts that are less than 1 year old... unbiased, my sweet backside.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/996080/posts
Regarding the necessity of printing the story at all: These allegations have been swirling around Mr. Schwarzenegger for years. Once he became a serious candidate for governor, the Times had to examine them; editors believe people have a right to know if these allegations were true. They also believe that voters ought to have the same information the newspaper has, and they should have it before election day, not after.
The seriousness of the charge?
Wonder if this photographed and video grope of a stewardess' inner thigh (without her consent) was given front page coverage in LA. Wonder if the rape allegations against President Clinton were considered front page news?<
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.